Re: diseases and immunity
Philip Deitiker (pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu)
Fri, 28 Jun 1996 17:47:39 GMT
mbwillia@ix.netcom.com(Mary Beth Williams) wrote:
>>>[Cutting to get to something that sticks out rather oddly.]
>Incorrect. *lith* is from the Greek for *stone* (lithos). Hence,
>paleolithic refers to *ancient stone (tools)*, not ancient writing.
> I was criticized for the
>>use of the term 'paleolithic' which I believe is correct since no
>>modern scriptic written langauge was present. I will go on using this
>>definition until someone either produces a written form for Eastern
>>woodlanders or tells me that paleolithic as I've defined it wrong.
>So I guess you'll stop now, no?
That's why it sticks out oddly <grinning>.
Actually, thanks for the clarification, I had been going by a
definition in an abridged dictionary, which I had never bothered to
crosscheck, you get what you pay for.....but as for stopping the
argument, I still don't think the clarification supports your point of
view either.
Lets see how you like this definition...
Paleolithic (c. 1865)..... of or relating to the second period of
the stone age characterized by rough or chipped stone impliments
(Sorry, but NIH and other gov't funds don't provide for new
dictionaries.)
So are you saying they didn't use chipped stone impliments?
Or is this definition also wrong? Not that it really matters because
its clear that these cultures had neither entered the metal ages yet.
Philip
|