The Significance of Comecrudan

[Max W Wheeler]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Alexis Manaster-Ramer wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Comecrudo) is a reasonable one.  I say Freasonable' because as stated I
> think the proof of "Comecrudan" lies in the broader Pakawan comparison.
>

In this brief final remark I think Alexis draws attention to an
important methodological point which has not figured at all prominently
during the discussion of method in comparative linguistics over the last
few months. There is ideally some feedback relationship between
hypotheses of subgrouping and hypotheses of broader comparison. Thus the
(or a) Nostratic hypothesis, if true, might be expected to throw light
on the problem of Afroasiatic subgrouping which has been raised
recently. It would do this by making clearer what is an archaism and
what is an innovation, a distinction which may not often be possible
just by looking at the lower level.

Is it the case...? or should it be the case, that the fruitfulness of a
hypothesis carries more weight than the reliability or generality of the
sound correspondences it is based on?

I take it that this is in line with Alexis's argument.


Max Wheeler

___________________________________________________________________________

Max W. Wheeler <maxw at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences
University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1273 678975; fax: +44 (0)1273 671320
___________________________________________________________________________