Subject: comparative methodthe recent discussion of limitation on the comparative method contain several assertion that such limitation have be and be be use to justify resistance to proposal of remote relationship , include amerind and nostratic . to my knowledge this be absolutely false . in every instance that i be aware of in which perceive temporal limitation on the comparative method have be mention , it be by way of explain why it be there be no relationship beyond a certain degree of remoteness on which there be consensus , or by way of make prediction as to what historical linguistics will ultimately be able to achieve . i do not know of a single instance in which someone have argue : such and such a propose relationship be associate with a time-depth of x year . this exceed the temporal limit of the comparative method . therefore the proposal must be wrong . if anyone can provide evidence of such an argument be make i would be most interest . in the particular case of amerind , the objection have be two-fold : ( a ) the datum be riddle with error ; ( b ) the argument be not of a sort that most historical linguist consider probative . since greenberg and ruhlen do not apply the comparative method disbelief in their claim could not rationally be base on perceive limitation of the comparative method , nor have it be . ironically , even if greenberg and ruhlen do attempt to apply the comparative method , amerind would not provide a very good instance of the above hypothetical argument . since even conservative estimate of the time-depth possible with the comparative method range from 6-10ky , cand since greenberg and ruhlen adhere to the low chronology for the people of the america that place it at roughly 12ky bp , their date for amerind do not radically exceed the perceive limit of the comparative method . in sum , whatever the validity of propose temporal limit on the comparative method , and i agree that such limit be far from exact , the view that this have anything to do with reaction to greenberg 's work on amerind and similar work be a red-her . to evaluate such proposal , look at the datum and look at the methodology , not at the allege ( and generally unknowable ) motivation of the critic . you 'd think that the irrelevance of ad hominem argument except in matter of credibility of witness would not need to be repeat constantly . bill poser bill poser , first nation study , university of northern british columbium , 3333 university way , prince george , british columbium , v2n 4z9 , canada 604-960 - 6692