I wish to second Emanuel Drechsel's motion for closure on discussion of
the fanciful discussion of transglobal linguistic relationships. I concur
with the objections of Emanuel Drechsel and others to this discussion. One
needn't look to historical genetic relationships to explain these
superficial and often coincidental similarities. Besides, language change,
though regular, is not constant, so ixnay to glottochronology.
These macrocomparisons smack of Greenberg's proto-world theory, in which
dubious reconstructions are proposed for "throat", "finger", "water", and
many other lexical items for all the world's languages. Such transglobal
comparisons as in this list, like Greenberg's macrocomparisons, are not
scientific and do not belong to the realm of legitimate linguistics. They
are shunned by the vast majority of the linguistic community. Why? Because
such work is not scientifically grounded, and belongs more to the realm of
astrology, phrenology, spontaneous human combustion, creationism, and other
speculative enterprises.
I would like to see this list devoted to serious discussion of native
American linguistics, rather than seeing my mailbox fill up with speculative
epistles with overtones of pseudoscience.
Kent Lee
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Kent Lee (Li Kai-an)Dept. of Linguistics
k-lee7@students.uiuc.eduUniversity of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
(217) 337-7787"It's not just phonology; it's fun-ology!"
> <>><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments from NativeNet listowner, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):
Again, as a non-scholar with respect to language matters, it seems to me
upon reflection that, despite the merits of the case to be made for some
single human proto-language, this is not the appropriate forum for that
topic to be debated, since it has the capacity to drown out conversation
of greater contemporary relevance to scholars of particular languages and
language families. I am not as willing as Kent to dismiss such theories
out of hand, since, as I mentioned, there have recently been discussions
of the topic by people who appeared to be serious and credible linguists
on radio and television programs which are fairly reputable and not known
for providing a platform for proponents of fringe points of view.
As a compromise, I would like to invite those who know something about what
debate there is to offer references to readily-obtainable reading material
on the subject and ask that others withhold their comments on the subject.
Please direct your opinions on this decision to me (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us).
Thanks.
Gary