Quoted By:
Bias in linguistics:
Categories like analytic, agglutinative, sythetic, head marking, atc, seem straightforward enough, until you realize there is no objective way to determine word boundaries, so it's a lot down to the field linguists recording the language.
Phonology also seem straigtforward enough, but in reality it might be again a lot down to subjective judgment if e.g. t?o/t? differ int he consonant or in the vowel. So linguists tend to stick close to the areal features or the written tradition.
For example, if Chinese was found spoken somewhere in the caucasus, ??????? might be very well interpreted as
t??j? ??? t????k????d?? ???w?t??
this be central-kingdom-ADJ hand-tool.
And categorized as agglutinative, with polysynthetic tendencies. with maybe 50 consonants, two or three vowels, and no tones.
