Mark Hubey's comments on lg classification

[Alexis Manaster-Ramer]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I don't have much to say (for once), except re Mark's
comment on lgs with no (historically significant) morphology.
Mark appears to be saying that the mere existence of such
lgs suffices to refute the claim that it is only by comparing
morphologies that we can establish lg families. But this
is not so: the alternative would be to say that for such
languages we cannot ever determine what families they
belong to.  Some linguists at the turn of the century
and later held precisely this view--or something very close
to it.