Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!newstand.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.clark.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!insync!uunet!in3.uu.net!128.135.181.132!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Hebrew words in Mayan language
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E5rEHK.4qt@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <33025666.4F5@vii.com> <01bc1b57$219a5b40$79c9f7a5@highfiber.highfiber.com> <331a30cb.184223211@news.demon.co.uk> <5e5ohh$ic3@mars.hyperk.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:10:32 GMT
Lines: 50

In article <5e5ohh$ic3@mars.hyperk.com>, Kerry Shirts <shirtale@srv.net> wrote:
>(Douglas Weller) says:
>>
>>On 15 Feb 1997 15:43:12 GMT, "Brant Gardner" <nahualli@highfiber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[Doug Weller] 
>>>> Isn't chicken a bad one to start with? After all, there weren't any
>>>> chickens
>>>> before Columbus! You did know that, didn't you?
>>>
>>>I don't mind holding people to academic standards, and Jim Larsen's list
>>>shows evidence of the lack of linguistic training. It is impressive only to
>>>non-linguists.  Jason Roberts examination was excellent and thoughtful. 
>>>However, your response is both unnecessarily flippant and demonstrates an
>>>unfortunate lack of understanding of translating.  Of course chicken isn't
>>>pre-contact, but 'ak would be - and likely be the same thing as the Nahuatl
>>>totolotl: turkey.
>>>
>>>If you hold others to high academic standards, please use them yourself.
>>
>>Ok, sorry. That was really a response based on an argument elsewhere about
>>pre-Columbian chickens. Anyway, apologies.
>
>Oh relax. It was more fun than anything....... We knew what you were
>talking about, that is, those of us who have followed the other discussion.

However, those of use on sci.lang--to which Mr. Weller's "chicken" remark
seems to be the first crossposting--didn't.  Given that, I don't think
demanding a little clarity is censurable.

Having said that, I must echo Mr. Gardner's comments.  If you want to see
an equally impressive list, turn to p. 223 of R.L. Trask's _Historical
Linguistics_ (London; Hew York : Arnold, 1996).  He spends the surrounding
chapter explaining why the existence of such lists is both unsurprising
and largely inconsequential in terms that a layman can easily understand.
I strongly recommend that any amateur with more than a passing interest in
comparative reconstruction (as our Mormon-on-a-mission seems to be) have a
look at this passage.

I don't mind the fact that dilettantes wish to attempt comparative
reconstruction, but--just as I couldn't expect my design for a perpetual
motion machine to be taken seriously if I'd never read a book on physics--
I don't think they should expect to be taken seriously if they can't show
an acquaintance with the most basic literature in the field.


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