Re: Polynesian and South American place names

From: Jacques Guy (jguy_at_alphalink.com.au)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:58:59 -0700

benlizross wrote:
 
> Philip Deitiker wrote:

> > Linguistics is very sloppy,
 
> So is genetics. So there.

And linguistics is sloppy enough as it is.
It needs the input of the new, improved
Barry Fell (aka Philip Deitiker) like it
needs a hole in the head.

> > So you are 100% positive beyond all reasonable doubt that the
> > word ko was not used to describe lakes prior to the Yayoi.

No-one knows for sure what language was spoken in Japan back
then, you pompous fart. Pottery shards don't talk.

Are _you_ 100% positive beyond all reasonable doubt that the
word ko was not used to describe lakes prior to the Picts?
Prior to the Etruscans? Abruti.

> > there is not a wonderful source population in asia that
> > I can extract these non-NA haplotypes from.

You can scream "haplotype" until you are blue in the face,
you can bellow "haplotype" until Kingdom Come, it won't make
a difference: there is no correlation between the language
you speak and the genes you carry.

> Well instead of answering my question you went back to your haplotypes.
> You could be 100% right about the people and the genes, for all I know.
> My point is that your attempt to boost your case with linguistic
> evidence is a waste of time.

> > Right the best way to do it is to absolutely define the genetic
> > source population in the oldworld, through it out on the
> > internet with alot of publicity, have someone copy the work and
> > publish it, and finally the linguist will wake up and do more
> > extensive comparisons.

We're talking about language here, ***-for-brains, and you started
it with you kooky Japanese lakes in British Columbia. Population
genetics has got ***-all to do with that.
 
I'll leave unsnipped what Ross Clark wrote next:

> Did you receive special instruction in being an arrogant prick during
> your scientific studies, or did it just come naturally to you?
> It seems that every few months nowadays some science jock full of his
> own smartness decides he can tell linguists what they should be finding.
> Such people are often breathtakingly ignorant of even the most
> elementary things about language. Learn this if you learn nothing else,
> Phil: Language relationships are not determined on the basis of
> geographical or genetic facts, any more than they are determined on the
> basis of political or religious facts.

Merci, Ross, I couldn't have put it better.

Et maintenant, on tire la chasse d'eau.

Quantcast