From Hans_Holm at h2.maus.de Mon Jul 10 11:16:00 2000 From: Hans_Holm at h2.maus.de (Hans Holm) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:16:00 +0200 Subject: "lumpers" In-Reply-To: <200004061829.LAA19647@netcom.com> Message-ID: [ Moderator's note: The following quotes from my own posting to this list dated 6 Apr 2000 with the same Subject: header. --rma ] Dear Rich, I just had a personal discussion in the totally opposite direction, where I was attacked for bringing some arguments in favour of the 'lumpers'. But one must admit that they are not too correct with most of their 'pseudo-cognates'. MAI>He clearly is an excellent linguist with a strong grasp of the MAI>methodologies of historical linguistics. What is doubted by all 'neogrammarian' splitters - and there are many in this list! But they seldom attack directly, you have to read it 'between the lines' or in publications. MAI>I would not even rule out a work associated with Mr. Ruhlen without MAI>at least a cursory examination. I daresay most list members are as MAI>tolerant as I... That is simply a question of regular sound shifts. And the splitters agree that no one can rely on Ruhlen in this point, because they are too superficially attested. My personal position is between both: we need both, but must e aware of the underlying assumptions. Regards Hans J. Holm D-30629 Hannover From Hans_Holm at h2.maus.de Mon Jul 10 11:16:00 2000 From: Hans_Holm at h2.maus.de (Hans Holm) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:16:00 +0200 Subject: "lumpers" In-Reply-To: <200004061829.LAA19647@netcom.com> Message-ID: [ Moderator's note: The following quotes from my own posting to this list dated 6 Apr 2000 with the same Subject: header. --rma ] Dear Rich, I just had a personal discussion in the totally opposite direction, where I was attacked for bringing some arguments in favour of the 'lumpers'. But one must admit that they are not too correct with most of their 'pseudo-cognates'. MAI>He clearly is an excellent linguist with a strong grasp of the MAI>methodologies of historical linguistics. What is doubted by all 'neogrammarian' splitters - and there are many in this list! But they seldom attack directly, you have to read it 'between the lines' or in publications. MAI>I would not even rule out a work associated with Mr. Ruhlen without MAI>at least a cursory examination. I daresay most list members are as MAI>tolerant as I... That is simply a question of regular sound shifts. And the splitters agree that no one can rely on Ruhlen in this point, because they are too superficially attested. My personal position is between both: we need both, but must e aware of the underlying assumptions. Regards Hans J. Holm D-30629 Hannover