Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Add to that that root sounds as languages
> developed were usually phonetically descriptive.
>
> By that I mean "sssnake!" doesn't require a lot of
> imagination as to root source...
>
> So different and unrelated languages probably
> shared many root syllables to describe the same
> concept even with no interaction. Admittedly as
> the language developed and evolved many of these
> commonalities disappeared or submerged into more
> complicated syllables.
>
> But to find a dozen or so shared out of all the
> different possible arrangements doesn't surprise
> anyone. It would be more shocking if NO similar
> words were discovered.
>
> Jammer

That isn't to say you aren't onto something Sam... just that it needs to be quantitatively stated rather than by quality/opinion/theory - or else it renders to only an opinion/unfounded theory, and one that isn't shared it would seem.

If you don't have the data I described, then by getting it you can either prove or disprove the base theory that seems like an opinion on your part... and convince others to take a more stringent look themselves.

I refer you to the chronicles on Cold Fusion for a very strong case example Just be sure not to miss the *current* quiet, and renamed, research into the strange phenomenon that was found during that history... Equally strong case example for how doing the research on a theory can spin the theory into something even more fascinating.

As Jammer said, a few, a few dozen, even scores of similarities might not mean much. Hundreds upon hundreds are indicative of a need to do the further research to identify how large or how many. Thousands to tens of thousands word parts would *certainly* be of interest to linguists between two languages or regional languages that weren't previously thought to have been in contact!.