"is the same as"

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

It sounds like biologists are starting to discover that biology works, in
some limited ways, like language.  If that's the case, linguists have known
how language change works for an awfully long time and biologists are just
beginning to discover how species influence one another.  I think that you
should drop the "language change is like biological change" and instead say
that "biological change is like language change".  There's a fundamental
difference in the statement.  If influence from one species to another is
not universal and is just being discovered, but influence from one language
to another IS universal and has been known and described for over a century
(at least), then the latter statement is far more accurate than the former.
How arrogant to try and equate linguistics to biology when linguistics has
the prior claim and the linguistic facts apply in ALL cases!

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)