Excluding Basque data

[Jon Patrick]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

My Apologies to the list for reposnding rather late to this item. I have been
overwhelmed with classes.

On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:33:03 +0100 (BST) Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
wrote in repsonse to Lloyd Anderson,
a long message which I will deal with in only a few parts-

    On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 ECOLING at aol.com wrote:

    [on my statement that databases do not free us from choosing criteria]

    > It is very different,
    > because no "exclusion" of data need be a permanent exclusion,

    And who has ever suggested that any exclusions should be permanent?
    Certainly not me.  Read what I've written.

    > because different users can choose different criteria  for proceeding,
    > and because the same user can change his or her mind at different times
    > and choose different criteria for proceeding.
    > One does not have to be "right" on the first choice,
    > there are no serious consequences for making an initial error.

    But this is equally true regardless of the technology in use.
    Look: databases do not save you from the consequences of your decisions.
    They only allow you to investigate the consequences of making different
    decisions more rapidly than working on paper does.  Convenient, of
    course, but there is no point of principle here.

    > With a paper method in which one cannot go back and change one's mind,

    And who has ever suggested such an approach?

    > there is a truly excessive focus on being "right" the first time round.

    No, there isn't.  The emphasis is only on being *cautious* the first
    time round.  But how does a database permit us to throw such caution to
    the winds without fear of error?

    > And disastrous consequences if one is not.

    There are many ways of achieving disastrous consequences in scholarly
    work.  And I cannot see that a policy of massive inclusion is a better
    way of avoiding disaster than a policy of prudent exclusion.

The debate on the use of databases I feel doesn't get to the nub of the
matter. Larry is correct in that databases do not stop disasters nor ecuse one
for a lack of caution. However Lloyd I believe is correct from the operational
perspective. I think databases are important because they add two features
that are not readily available using pen and paper methods of analysis.
Firstly comprehensiveness and secondly transparency. The latter being
dependent on the former. I think Larry doesn't feel either are important
undoubtedly due to faith in his own integrity and that's his right.
The moment data is lodged into a database and then systematically analysed by
a method that is invariant on each data item we have a more reliable result
because all of us collectively can see the data and the results the method
produces (I assume there is public access to the database). This is not
available by a pen and paper method as the data and the methods are not as
readily visible or dispersible. So the difference is in terms of access by the
public (us) and accountability. I notice that Larry more often than others
tells one to go read the texts   when we don't understand him, whilst that is
valid at one level, it also a strategy that lowers the accountablity of an
argument because public access to it is more limtied.

    >>I flatly deny this, and I challenge you to back up your assertion.

    > Like Jon Patrick, I believe that Larry Trask's criteria MAY IN EFFECT
    > bias the results to favor hypotheses which he himself espouses.
    > This DOES NOT MEAN that he is consciously aware of this,
    > (nor that he is deliberately manipulating the data,
    > as he seems to have inferred he was being charged with).
    > Quite the contrary, it probably results from his being so convinced of
    > certain hypotheses that he can scarcely conceive of them not being
    > correct.
    > Others may find it easier to conceive of that
    > (as is so often true in research, nothing unusual here).

    This is no answer to my challenge.

    You assert that you personally believe that my criteria "may in effect"
    bias the findings.  But you have signally failed to explain how this
    result might come about.

    So tell me: how do my principal criteria of early attestation,
    widespread distribution, and absence from neighboring languages "have
    the effect" of biasing my results on phonological form?

Simply, it is possible that the words used to currently define the
phonological form of early euskara are drawn from words that already conform
to these criteria. Hence Larry's "beliefs" about the forms of early-euskara
will be vindicated by an analysis of words that conform to his criteria.
Alternatively it might be said he have chosen these criteria because they will
produce a word list that matches the "beliefs" he has already constructed
about early-euskara phonolgy, afterall he has  told us that  he has a pretty
good idea of what the results are.

As such a situation is a possibility then it is sensible to look at the merits
of the criteria of themselves.
I would comment
a. early attestation -it is known words were missed in early dictionaries and
documents
b. widespread distribution - it is known the lesser dialects (northern,
Roncevalles) provide important information on early euskara.
c. absence in neighbouring languages - open to interpretation/debate for some
words whether they are original or borrowed.

cheers
Jon
______________________________________________________________
The meaning of your communication is the response you get