Yakhontov

[Alexis Manaster-Ramer]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------


On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Larry Trask wrote:

> Just a clarification about what I said about Yakhontov.
>
> Yakhontov's work was brought to my attention by Sergei Starostin,
> replying to me in the pages of Mother Tongue.  Sergei affirmed
> Yakhontov's principle in terms of known cognates in languages known to
> be related, but then went on to adduce a further version involving
> nothing but perceived resemblances, and to use this against me.  He
> seemed to present this second version as though it were the same thing
> as the first version, something for which I took him to task at the
> time.

Starostin denies that he presented such a second version.  But
if he did or if anybody did, your critique if absolutely
compelling and lucidly presented and I recall criticizing
Starostin and the editors of MT in a posting to the list
for not acknowledging just how right you were--much as
I more recently criticize you for not being fairer to them.
>
> I then went looking for a published source for Yakhontov's principle,
> and discovered there was none: Yakhontov had never published it.  But
> Sergei did publish a summary in his book on Altaic and Japanese, and
> somebody who had this book kindly mailed me the relevant passage.  From
> this passage, which I did not find totally explicit, I gathered the
> impression that Starostin was imputing *both* versions to Yakhontov, and
> that's what I said in my posting.

But in fact you misread or misinterpreted what he says there.
I think Mark Hubey explained the difference quite well in his
posting, by the way.

>
> I was then contacted by another Russian linguist who knows Yakhontov
> personally, and who assured me that the second version was not
> Yakhontov's.  At present, then, I conclude that the second version,
> involving only perceived resemblances, is Starostin's own idea, and not
> Yakhontov's.

But where do we find a clear statement by Starostin of this
second version?  Certainly not in the 1991 book on Altaic.

> My apologies if I've misled anybody, but I was doing my best to find out
> the truth.  That's not easy when the originator doesn't publish his work
> and the only published source is both unavailable to me in Brighton and
> not very clear anyway.

Starostin's book is entirely clear. Anybody can judge by
reading the passage which I have e-distributed.

AMR