re : 6 . 797 , comparative method : n - ary comparison content - length : 1653 i , too , had noted that there seemed to be two notions of comparison here , but unlike scott delancey i did not assume that there we should distinguish between comparison for the sake of building a reconstruction and simply for the sake of determining possible relationship . to my mind , the numbers that jacques guy posted demonstrate , not the weakness of n-ary comparison , but its strength : if we are looking at a grouping of languages of which we are uncertain of relationships , and the number of potential n-way cognates is as low as random chance would dictate , then the likelihood is against their being closely-enough related to pursue reconstruction . i think this answers , by the bye , david powers ' perhaps rhetorical question regarding the assumptions under which janhunen 's claims could be considered a fallacy . i ' m not quite sure how to address powers ' conclusions , however . the methods of comparison most of us accept have built into them a checking mechanism , such that acceptance of some set of matches as " true " ( in powers ' terms ) constrains the set of further matches we can accept : what he considers to be " false " matches may not , under these constraints , be treated as matches at all . under this methodology , n-way comparison * does * increase the ratio of signal to noise in the data . i do not have access to janhunen 's original statements . if alexis manaster - ramer has summarized them accurately , i have to conclude either that janhunen is unfamiliar with the actual workings of the comparative method , or that the conclusion summarized by amr is disingenuous in the extreme - - and is indeed a fallacy , either way . rich alderson