Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)

From: Jacques Guy (jguy_at_alphalink.com.au)
Date: 03/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:19:11 +1000

phippsmartin@hotmail.com wrote:
 
> You could make things a lot clearer by classifying languages in
> different ways and then declaring them "grammatically related" or
> "lexically related" or "phonically related" rather than simply placing
> languages into groups and giving the impression that languages in
> different groups are completely unrelated.

That would be like saying that Tom and *** are related by
the arms, Harry and Sam by the legs, and Judy and Helen
by the knee-bones. I am tempted to turn that into an argument
on the models of the Summa Theologica, but I am a bit lazy
right now. Just I'll put it in more pedestrian terms.

If *** and Harry are related by the collar-bone, are they
also related by the shin-bone? Put it another way, if they
are related by some part of the body, are there parts of their
bodies by which they are not related? And if there are,
how did those come into being?

Admonition: in discussing the question, remember that
resemblance are relatedness are not equivalent.

(Y'a qu'sus sci.lang qu'on rigole comme ça :-)

                                      this smiley was not wide enough
:-(

Quantcast