5 1404 comparative method linguistics karl teeter mistaken think says classify languages basis phonological correspondences lexical items says would treat english french related via norman borrowings says idea using method novel says classify lamnguages related written comparative grammar etc many language families basis classification available lack kind morphological complexity beloved indo europeanists algonkianists ists happen enjoy blessings languages b danger confusing borrowings cognates always real easy see lexical connaections english french transparent phonologically less central semantically dutch hence recent hence borrowings c nothing novel saying since method example edward sapir used establish uto aztecan languages really family rather three families possibly realistically expect normal people spend time writing comparative grammars languages previously shown related classification must come first hand perfectly easy write crazy comparative grammar random group languages e g french english last perhaps important point reconstruction morphological systems done well badly comparison lexical items yield correct results also produce garbage p say lexical items deliberately seem language families morphology compare cases howveer bound morphemes one compares well sapir case uto aztecan far cry reconstructing kind intricate morphological patterns found older indo european languages example absent many language families