14.1908, Disc: Re 'Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots'

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-14-1908. Thu Jul 10 2003. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 14.1908, Disc: Re 'Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots'

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:          Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:52:09 -0400
From:          Steve Hewitt <s.hewitt at UNESCO.ORG>
Subject:       Re: 14.1825, Media: NYT: Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots

2)
Date:  Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:47:46 -0400 (EDT)
From:  William J Poser <wjposer at unagi.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject:  Re: 14.1876 "Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots"

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:          Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:52:09 -0400
From:          Steve Hewitt <s.hewitt at UNESCO.ORG>
Subject:       Re: 14.1825, Media: NYT: Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots

See a review of the article in Le Figaro of 9 July 2003:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/cgi/edition/genimprime?cle=20030709.FIG0242

Best,

Steve Hewitt


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:47:46 -0400 (EDT)
From:  William J Poser <wjposer at unagi.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject:  Re: 14.1876 "Celtic Found to Have Ancient Roots"

Larry Trask wonders why this paper was published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,
a journal not commonly read by historical linguists. I
suggest that there are two reasons. The first is that
since it is unlikely that any linguistics journal would
publish such tripe, the authors had to find a journal
that was either unrefereed (as PNAS used to be) or that
is unlikely to use referees with competance in the relevant
area. The second is that publishing in a "science" journal
gives the false impression that the work is necessarily
of good quality.

-
Bill Poser, Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wjposer/ billposer at alum.mit.edu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-14-1908