Re: Linguistic roots Re: branches of science

On Nov 28, 9:51 am, b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>
>
>   It doesn't provide _roots_, it provides a description of ties of
> linguistic influence in the British isles (not English, notwithstanding
> its assertion.)   (Also misses divergence of Celtic into its two main
> branches and then subdivision, and omits Cornish entirely).
> 'Renaissance' is not a language I've ever heard of.  Perhaps you can
> explain that one?  It's also a pretty egregious lumping to put
> Spanish and 'American Indian' as a single group influence.
>
Yes, I looked it over more carefully, and noticed the problems you
mention.

>   For both the language thing and for science, I consider it im****tant
> that the picture be meaningful.  It's insufficient to merely list
> a bunch of things in a pleasant graphic

Yes, again. I want to avoid this. I'm now getting ready to study that
material on graphs that John mentioned. I had no idea that there was a
theory of graphs. This looks pretty interesting. I'll be in touch.



>
> --
> Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science
faqs and amateur
activities notes and links.
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New
Sciences