comparative method geoff pullum problem geoff posting sounds like assumes two sides issues discussion b one orthodox one apparently little short crazy suggestion defend idea linguistic relationships discovered beyond ones known 1840 cutoff date socalled remote distant connections might go far accept greenberg muskogean data wrong yet maintain muskogean amerind without citing new data think reality quite different example victor golla karl teeter although debating methodological issues relevant nostratic actually close issues except ones discussion apparently particular issues concerning proposed amerind grouping lots historical linguists different crossclassifying views matters example eric hamp widely quoted views nostratic yet staunch defender altaic connection luoravetlan eskimo aleutian many like nostratic like amerind think case deserves examined merits whole idea contrasting orthodox mainstream remote distant comparisons without foundation lead needless polarization finally feel methodological issues substantive ones discussed separately latter important even former often seductive close positive note consonant spirit season karl teeter reach point major remaining disagreements whether principle one could could write comparative grammar anglo french b whether fact work done date nostratic sufficient taking working hypothesis least indo european uralic altaic kartvelian afro asiatic related going think achieved considerable progress even sure even disagree points discussion goes mutual misunderstandings seem disappear course remain lot hard work done even language families see inevitable disagreements considered problem disagreements within indo europeanist community different versions laryngeal theory glottalic theory etc