The Parent/Daughter Question (was Contributions)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I'm sending this with a little reluctance, but mainly to clarify the question
being addressed, which was a bit narrower than where it has ended up.

In a message dated 10/3/99 02:00:55 AM, Larry Trask wrote:

<<I guess I might respond to a few of his points -- especially since I think
that Steve and Lloyd are both gravely wrong on certain fundamental points.  I
think both have fallen badly into the reification fallacy.  The
reification fallacy lies in inventing a name, and then concluding that,
since we have a name, there must exist something "out there" for the
name to refer to.>>

Just for the record: neither Lloyd nor myself "invented" the word 'language.'
 I cannot speak for Lloyd, but I do not recall "inventing" "English" or
"Basque" or the name of any other language that I know of.

Apparently someone else "out there" either was making up names for imaginary
entities or actually thought they heard or saw something that they called a
"language."  We didn't reificate.  Someone else did.

LT also wrote:
<<But this is wrong, all wrong. Names like `English', `German' and `Italian'
designate real-world entities only to the extent that enough people want this
to be so -- for whatever reasons.  Those reasons are just as likely to be
historical, cultural and political as they are linguistic.... And all
discussions predicated upon the belief that this is a linguistically
meaningful question with a LINGUISTICALLY MEANINGFUL ANSWER are badly
MISGUIDED.>> [Caps mine.]

ACTUALLY, Larry Trask STARTED these discussions.  It was Larry who first
acted as if this was a "linguistically meaningful question."  And if I was
misguided it was partly by his guidance.  This thread and all recent related
threads had their start right here, in the following post:

I wrote:
<<                         PIE
                                      /   \
                                    /   Anatolian
Does this mean that PIE co-exists with Anatolian?  It would have to, wouldn't
it?>>

Specifically to which Larry Trask replied (8/24/99 03:04:58 AM):
<<No.  An ancestral LANGUAGE cannot co-exist with its own descendant.>>
[Caps mine]

At this particular point, Larry Trask seemed to have NO PROBLEM using the
term "language" in a linguistic sense as if it were the real thing.  Was
Larry reificating?  And is it disingenuous to raise a question by declaring a
"language" cannot exist with its own descendant AND THEN announce that the
question is meaningless - after good counterarguments have been raised?  Can
one actually first pronounce without qualification that a parent language
CANNOT CO-EXIST with its daughter and then argue afterwards that that
language DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST after all?

LT went on to explain in the same post what is happening at the top of the
UPenn tree that I illustrated above:
<<It is concluded by the Penn group... that Anatolian was the first branch of
IE to split off from the rest. So, that top node, with its two daughters,
represents an initial split of the single LANGUAGE PIE, with one daughter
being the ancestor of Anatolian, and the other daughter being the single
common ancestor of everything else.  We now often speak of `broad PIE' -- the
ancestor of the whole family -- and `narrow PIE' -- the ancestor of
everything except Anatolian.  Narrow PIE is a sister LANGUAGE of
Proto-Anatolian...>> [Caps are mine]

[Larry Trask writes: "I firmly believe that the question `Are related
varieties A and B the same language or different languages?' is one devoid of
linguistic content."  So that Larry should find his own description of "the
single language PIE" and "narrow PIE" as "sister language" to Proto-Anatolian
equally "devoid of linguistic content."  Note also that either the two PIEs
are two different "languages" OR PIE co-existed with its daughter, by the
terms of Larry Trask's own statement about co-existence.]

Given Larry Trask's current stand, I would say that his argument is now with
the "Penn group" for "concluding that, since we have a name" (e.g., PIE)
"there must exist something 'out there' for the name to refer to."  Either wit
h the Penn group or - of course -  with his former self.

You see, I was just using THEIR terminology.  Look at the papers posted on
the UPenn tree website and you will see they are dripping with the term
'language' and "linguistic distinctions" between "related languages" and all
almost exclusively in a "linguistic" sense.  If anyone is guilty of
"reification", it is not myself (nor Lloyd, for that matter) who was merely
trying to get at the premise behind the tree and used the terms being used by
the authors.

Even going back to the first appearance of the UPenn tree as the source of
this whole question, it was asked: <<Is Phrygian still considered as a
possible ancestor or close relative of Armenian?  Is Macedonian considered
closer to Greek or Thracian?>>

To which Sean Crist replied:
<<Here is a partial answer; ...  In the last few years, Don Ringe, Tandy
Warnow, and Ann Taylor collaborated to produce a phylogeny of the
Indo-European LANGUAGES.... What was new in their approach was to use this
methodology to produce a phylogeny of a family of LANGUAGES...>> [Caps mine.]
 Crist showed a tree with Anatolian branching off from PIE to one side, and
nothing but a dotted line going off from PIE to the other.

I could only assume that Anatolian was one of those "languages" he referred
to.  And PIE was another.  And address my question in those terms.

If Larry Trask is saying that (to quote Larry) "an ancestor language cannot
co-exist with its own descendent" BECAUSE the issue is NOT "a linguistically
meaningful question" - then he should start his argument where the
terminology was first used - in the description of the UPenn tree and the
procedure it follows.  (I.e., first, "array the languages", then assign
characteristics, then build some trees.)  The Penn group has none of Larry's
problems with defining a language - to say the least.

Finally, Larry Trask wrote:
<<Is modern English "the same language" as Proto-Germanic?  As PIE?  If not,
then at what stage do we have a cutoff point between one language and the
next, and why?>>

I'm sure that Larry Trask's apparent position here - that Proto-Germanic and
modern English can't be linguistically distinguishable as separate
"languages" - deserves a much more formidable counterpoint than this
non-specialist correspondent can offer.  And perhaps the authors of the UPenn
tree (or perhaps Mr. Crist) would be just the ticket - especially since they
are the original reason that the term "language" was used in these
discussions.  And because they use the term "language" in just the way Larry
seems to object to.  And because their uses and definition of the term
"language" is why Larry announced with authority that "an ancestor LANGUAGE
cannot co-exist with its own descendent" in the first place.

Regards,
Steve Long