|
|
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155697833.860320.299190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> lorad474@xxxxxx wrote:
> > Christopher Culver wrote:
> > > lorad474@xxxxxx writes:
> > > > Then you unaware that Slavic is a recent offshoot of Baltic.
> > >
> > > That you would assert such a thing outright considering the legendary
> > > uncertainty over the relationship between Baltic and Slavonic (genetic
> > > relationship vs. areal convergence) just undermines the reliability of
> > > any other comments you might make.
> >
> > Not at.all.
> > I suggest that your aprise yourself of current research in genetic
> > cladistic language relationships as reported by Ringe et alia.
>
> Ringe et al.'s results differ from the results of every IE philologist
> who has ever investigated the question. They clearly did not ask the
> computer the right questions.
>
> (Plus, of course, language families rarely branch into pure trees.)
I downloaded the ringe02IECladistics.pdf and had a quick browse
throught it. About the pure trees Ringe et al. say because the
proposed branching structure is such a clear and simple tree the
theory has an advantage of making it easily falsifiable.
I think he is dead right about that.
> > Try this one:
> > www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/ringe02IECladistics.pdf
> >
> > ..bearing in mind that Slavic didn't exist until Ss. Methodius and
> > Cyril, of course.
>
> What, they invented it like Klingon?
I wasted nearly two hours of my time loading and browsing
through the ringe02IECladistics.pdf article. I have found
no support what-so-ever for lorad's statements.
I am totally dumbfounded. In fact the article contradicts
most/all lorad's anarchic statements. :-o
Out of all Slavic languages Ringe et al. chose one, OCS, to
load into their computer database. Fair enough. But is that
what made lorad to conclude that no other slavic languages
existed? Hmmm.
pjk
|
|