ELL: New SIL Alias

[J. DIEGO QUESADA]

<37E7BB48.D08D287A at bc.sympatico.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: carmen.murdoch.edu.au: majodomo set sender to
owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au using -f
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 17:06:00 -0700
From: "J. DIEGO QUESADA" <dquesada at chass.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
CC: marilia at acd.ufrj.br
Subject: Re: ELL: New SIL Alias
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au

Bill Poser wrote:
>
> This thread about a new SIL alias is based on the premise that the New
> Tribes Mission is the same organization as the SIL. Does anyhow have any
> evidence that this is in fact the case? My understanding is that they
> are distinct.

  Good question. But that is precisely the point. Although it is no doubt
  much more elegant and "serious" to present evidence, the fact that there
  is no "evidence" at hand does not mean that it does not exist or that
  the hypothesized situation does not exist; it simply means that one has
  to keep looking. At any rate, there are things in this world which
  sometimes cannot be proven by means of what has come to be termed
  "evidence", and I am not talking here about gods, or spirits. I am
  talking about things that are done in such as way that no "evidence" is
  left behind. Any freshman in (penal) law knows that. E.g. Do we have any
  evidence that the US sank the Maine on purpose? There might be
  somewhere, there might not be. The existence of evidence in this case is
  secondary. No one could provide any "evidence" of who was behind the
  coup in Chile in 1973, NO ONE (whoever says s/he had it is a liar). As
  of Sept. 11, 1973 no one did. After so many years the CIA releases files
  and the evidence is there. What was more important? To act (or not to
  act) right on, denounce what was going on and hint at possible sources
  (which in the end proved true) or wait without doing anything until the
  "evidence" was found? What use was this evidence now? The point is, let
  us not go so technical. Sometimes it helps, some other times it does not
  and is not so important.

  J. Diego Quesada

  ----
  Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
  Web pages http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
  Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
  ----