The Significance of Comecrudan

[Alexis Manaster-Ramer]

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


On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, bwald wrote:

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
[snip]

[quotes me as rejecting the following:]

>> (I) Language relatedness can only be shown by
>> reference to morphology  (falsified by the history of how Tai,
>> Comecrudan,
>> and (an example I forgot to cite earlier) how Uto-Aztecan was
>> discovered),
>>
>> (II) Language relatedness can only be shown by establishing a system of
>> sound laws (falsified by the history of how Niger-Kordofanian,
>> Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, and indeed probably most of the currently
>> accepted language families were established)."
>
> The two assertions are opposed to each other, when I think they should be
> presented as
> cooperative properties of the consensus view.

What I dispute is that (I) and (II) represent "the consensus view".
They are widespread misconceptions, and they have become something that
a lot of people who typically do not know much about the subject
proclaim loudly AS THOUGH they WERE the consensus view. But that
is a different matter.

> In this context, I want to comment on AMR's claim that Niger-Kordofanian
> (and probably various other families) falsifies the traditional claim of
> how language-relatedness is ESTABLISHED.
>
> These statements remind me of what I wrote in reference to Merritt
> Ruhlen's argument that language-relatedness is "established" prior to such
> things as the above; he was pushing mass comparison as sufficient to
> "establish" relationship.
[snip]
I object to guilt-by-association arguments.  My view is simply that
to establish the validity of a language family, e.g., Indo-European,
requires far less work than does the correct reconstruction of
the corresponding proto-language.  That is all.
>
> Further repeating comments I think I have already made on this list, let's
> take the case of Niger-Kordofanian (which generally reverted to the earlier
> label Niger-Congo, NC, in a manner similar to the way "Indo-Hittite"
> reverted to "Indo-European".)
>
> It is absolutely true that concerned scholars "accept" the notion of an NC
> family as the most reasonable HYPOTHESIS (yet offered, and over the dead
> bodies of previous hypotheses) for the massive similarities among various
> NC languages.  However, in the absence of DEMONSTRATION by classical
> methods, there is disagreement about membership in that family -- and the
> skepticism is JUSTIFIED until such demonstration is forthcoming.

I don't know what "classical methods" here refers to, unless it is
again the imaginary consensus view.  The point I am making is that
the relatedness of Bantu (together with its most obvious relations)
with (at least some of) the Kordofanian languages, based on the congruence
of the nominal class prefix markers, is not something that, to my
somewhat limited knowledge, is questioned by any sane person.
If I am wrong, please provide me with the relevant references.

On the other hand, the fact that there may be disagreements
about SOME lgs is not surprising or interesting.  Even after
Hittite was accepted as IE, many IEnists continued to doubt
that some other Anatolian lgs (Hittite's closest relaitons)
are IE.

[snip]
>
> I think I am doing more than mincing words to bring to attention
> the need for an argument in defense of more speculative relationships to be
> more carefully and precisely laid out, esp what makes a speculative
> relationship more or less promising (for eventual demonstration).
I agree.  This is just what I said myself, that we need not decide
(in fact, should not decide) whether a given hypothesis is correct
before doing a great deal of work.  My problem is with people
who try to preempt such work or any serious discussion of it.

>  If that
> is all that is being proposed -- great!  Leave out the part about the
> consensus view being "arbitrary" or "made up from whole cloth", or defend
> it.

I have discussed in print, in easily accessible journals, why
this is NOT the consensus view and why it IS arbitrary and invented.
Am I to assume that my work is not being read?

AMR