Abstract
Abstract
This invited response to a piece by LaPolla, published in issue 39/2 of LTBA, addresses both LaPolla’s misrepresentations of the history of linguistics and his flawed understanding of historical linguistics. The history of linguistic thought with regard to the Tibeto-Burman or Trans-Himalayan language family vs. the Indo-Chinese or “Sino-Tibetan” family tree model is elucidated and juxtaposed against the remarkable robustness of certain ahistorical myths and the persistence of unscientific argumentation by vocal proponents of the Sino-Tibetanist paradigm, such as LaPolla.
Publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference102 articles.
1. Schools of Thought
2. Klaproth (Martin Heinrich);Bässler,1884
3. Z historie uralistiky: pionýrské období (9. stol. – 1850);Blažek;Linguistica Brunensia,2013
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献