Re: Universality of Interjections?

Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> You've fallen into the trap that haunts glottochronology and other
> unsound attempts to find relationships between unrelated languages:
> the inability to distinguish chance resemblance from a deeper
> systematic relationship, blindly believing that anything that is
> similar must also be fundamentally related. Bats and gnats both have
> wings, so they must be related!
>
> But ignoring your now-famous linguistics naivete, a Chinese-English
> connection is hardly "universal", and a mere list of words isn't an
> "explanation" of anything at all (universal or not).
>
> Nathan

Hmph.

Martin

.

Quantcast