Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!yale!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ncar!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Language tree vs evolutionary tree
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DEz7Cx.Fo@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <DEIxrB.8J0@crash.cts.com> <4352d1$h7b@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <43am5c$92l@medici.trl.OZ.AU> <43bmpl$6kb@news.uni-c.dk>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 02:10:08 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <43bmpl$6kb@news.uni-c.dk>,
H Thygesen  <edb-ht@find2.dbc.bib.dk> wrote:
>jbm@newsserver.trl.oz.au (Jacques Guy) wrote:

>> Spot on! Language trees and biological taxonomy share the same
>> mathematical properties. 
>
>I disagree - I think taxonomy is very different from linguistics.
>
>In biology, only individuals from the same species can have shared
>decestors. Hence, the evolutionary tree *is* a tree except if you look
>at the finer details (the race tree of a particular species is in 
>general not a tree).
>
>In linguistics, even completely non-related languages can merge into
>a new language.

But gene-splicing changes this, thereby improving the analogy.  Now 
DNA from quite distantly-related species can be combined, much the
way that linguistic material from disparate languages can.
 

-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
