Yes, in my dictionary. Also, however, in current dialectometric and general linguistic academic discourse the distinction is clear. It's also clear on Wikipedia:
Â
Lexicostatistics is related to the comparative method but does not reconstruct a proto-language. It is to be distinguished from glottochronology, which attempts to use lexicostatistical methods to estimate the length of time since two or more languages diverged from a common earlier proto-language.
Â
The Swadesh 100-list was mentioned as was 'a 200 word list' the origin of which was not specified, although I would assume it was the Swadesh 200-list. The fact that the McMahons examine the applications of other wordlists was mentioned in passing (and in brackets). I don't know how to respond to the question as to whether or not I have read enough. I believe so, although I have not had the benefit of personal communication with Lyle Campbell.
Â
I hope I did not appear rude in my initial response, I certainly did not expect such an abrupt reply.
Â
Nà bhacfaidh mé le tada a rá i dtaobh litriú mo r-phoist ach go raibh mé gafa le Newsnight ag an am. Tá súil agam go maithfear dhom é sin. Tá mo chuidse ráite ar an ábhar seo ar chaoi ar bith agus nà bheadsa ag cur mo ladar sa scéal arÃs. Nà duine mé atá ag foghlaim Gaeilge cibé, rud a fhágann nár cheart dhom a bheith ar an liosta seo ar chor ar bith.
Â
Beannacht libh, arÃs.
Peadar
--- On Thu, 9/12/10, J P Maher <***@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
From: J P Maher <***@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: [GAELIC-L] Dialect speakers of Irish
To: GAELIC-***@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Date: Thursday, 9 December, 2010, 22:54
In your dictionary. Others?
Have you read enough?
Didn't Miss Herbert refer expressly to the Swadesh 100-list?
 j p maher
PS: use yer Speltschekk
--- On Thu, 12/9/10, Peadar <***@YAHOO.CO.UK> wrote:
From: Peadar <***@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: [GAELIC-L] Dialect speakers of Irish
To: GAELIC-***@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2010, 4:35 PM
A chairde,
Â
It is important to distinguish between lexicstatistics and glottochronology. They are not the same thing.
Â
Lexicostatistics as used nowadays has nothing to do with dating language divergence in absolute terms; rather it seeks to classify dialect proximity using synchronic data sets like any other dialectometric method except that in this case, obviously, it functions on a lexical level. See April McMahon's (Prof of English Language, Uni of Edinburgh) recent contributions on this in the Transactions of the Philological Society or her co-authered book 'Language Classification by Numbers' for how Swadesh's word lists (among others) can be used, not to date in absolute terms language divergence (like carbon 14) but rather to map diachronic linguistic proximity at a lexical level. It is especially useful for mapping dialect proximity and has been tried and tested on Dutch and English dialects and shown to produce results which coincide with the detailed knowledge we alredy have have on dialect inter-relationships within these languages.
Â
The merits or otherwise of glottochronology (emphasis on the chronological aspect) aside, it is not the same as lexicostatistics which has developed as an important and central aspect of dialectometric investigation on its own merits, dependant primarily on the intellectual foundation laid by Séguy, Goebl, the McMahons and others. The confusion of the terms glottochronology and lexicostatistics, from my own experience, is something which fades out of the academic commentary with the emergence of French dialectometry in the late 60s early 70s. It does still, however pop up every now and then, although it would be a shame were the confusion to be carried on into the next decade.
Â
Le meas agus beannacht oraibh,
Â
Peadar à Muircheartaigh
--- On Thu, 9/12/10, J P Maher <***@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
From: J P Maher <***@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: [GAELIC-L] Dialect speakers of Irish
To: GAELIC-***@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Date: Thursday, 9 December, 2010, 18:38
 Re: [GAELIC-L] Dialect speakers of Irish
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2010, 12:18 PM
 Dear GH
 Tread warily. Swadesh was a darling of US linguistics in the 1950s and 1960s. My argument is not that glottochronology ~ lexicostatistics is passé, but that it was no good when it was le dernier cri. Its basic idea was that language change is like biological change and could be calibrated like C-14 half-life etc. Swadesh was incompetent in historical linguistics. He  would say e.g. that Indo-European âsun - *saweliosâ was lost, displaced by Irish grian. Or he would say that IE âeyeâ â *okâu-â was lost, displaced by Irish suil. But the latter continues IE *sawelios â the eye of the (daytime) sky. And Irish grian did not come out of nowhere to bump the IE term; it continues IE *ghreinÄ Â âto shine, be brightâ.
Lyle Campbell (private communication) said he had applied Swadeshâs hocus pocus to the corpus gathered from two men in Guatemala, with the result that their dialects had diverged as per the Swadesh list 1500 years ago.
The men were brothers.
Bibliography.
Â
You can trust:
Lyle Campbell 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press.
http://books.google.com/books?id=h36tPYqAZPwC&dq=swadesh++%22lyle+campbell%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s
See esp. page 123 133 136 1439 167 209 210 433.
Â
Swadesh, Morris. 1955. âTowards Greater Accuracy in Lexicostatistic Datingâ International Journal of American Linguistics, XXI, p. 121.
Pure nonsense - but itâs enormous fun to try and Swadesh several conlangs together! books.google.com/books?isbn=0195140508...
--- On Thu, 12/9/10, Geraldine Herbert <***@TCD.IE> wrote:
From: Geraldine Herbert <***@TCD.IE>
Subject: [GAELIC-L] Dialect speakers of Irish
To: GAELIC-***@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2010, 8:47 AM
Hi,
I am replicating a study that was done on Morpheme Retention in Irish by Leo
F. McNamara in 1961. The McNamara study uses Swadesh's 100-item list , as
a basis for a list of Old and Modern Irish forms. From this list Morphemic
cognates are determined, i.e. words that have a common etymological origin
are identifies. The modern forms were obtained from three scholars in the
language. Each recorded, what in their judgment were the most commonly
used modern Irish equivalents for the English words listed.
In the new study 200 words are used and the modern forms have been
selected. It is intend to extend the study to cover modern Irish dialects along
Scottish Gaelic and Manx in order to ascertain what was the relationship of Old
Irish to these languages/dialects.
Below is a sample of the list
Index   English   Notes   Old Irish (600-900)   Modern Irish (2010)
1   all   (pl.)   uili   uile
2   and      ocus   agus
3   animal      anmandae   ainmhÃ
4   arrow      saiget   saighead
I am looking for volunteers to compile a list of modern Irish words from the
English list supplied, in one of the three dialects, i.e. Ulster, Munster or
Connacht.
All suggestions, help etc will be credited fully in any publication or conference
paper that arises from this work. If you would be willing to participate please
contact me off list and I can supply the original article and the list.
Many thanks for you time
Geraldine Herbert,
Computational Linguistics Group,
School of Computer Science
and Statistics,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2
***@tcd.ie