Africa vs. Americas, Multilateral Comparison

[Larry Trask]

ECOLONG at aol.com writes:

>  For a more succesful future for historical linguistics in general,
>  as for any other field,
>  it is essential that we use issues which generate public excitement
>  and channel that interest in productive ways.

Well, I agree that we should try to keep the public aware of our findings, of
course.

But it's a sad fact that journalists, even on supposedly serious publications,
generally prefer sensational but ill-founded ideas to sober but unspectacular
work.

If you publish a book "proving" that Etruscan is Basque -- as somebody recently
did -- you get substantial and even drooling coverage in major newspapers.
If you then write to those newspapers explaining that they have reported garbage
as serious work, you get ignored.

>  Historical linguists shouldbe at the forefront of actively
>  exploring correlations between language, ethnicity, blood groups,
>  dentition types, DNA studies, and all other sources of information
>  which can give clues to the history of humanity.

Why?

Historical linguists have no competence in these other areas, and many of us
are skeptical that there exists anything there to be found.  Surely we are
better off sticking to what we do best, and merely making sure that our results
are publicly available.

Anyway, as usual, the sensational reports concerning languages, genes and teeth
have received a good deal of popular coverage, while the critiques advanced by
specialists in all the relevant fields have received rather less coverage.  It
is not so easy to popularize good work in the face of competition from shoddy
but eye-catching work.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk