The Comparative Method and "semantics"

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

Steve Long wrote:

> I wrote that "if two words are a phonologically the same [within
> the workings
> of the sound rules, of course], they have a high probability of common
> ancestry"

> You [kurisuto at unagi.cis.upenn.edu] write that's "incorrect."  Because
> "There are several other ways that
> such pairs could arise."

> That doesn't follow.  The fact there are other ways they could arise only
> means that the probability is not 100%.  It doesn't mean the
> probability is
> not high.

But you haven't demonstrated that the probability is even high.  Take, for
example, the English [ber] 'bear (n)', 'bare', 'bear (vb)'.  According to
your criteria, these three should have a high probability of being part of
the same cognate set.  They aren't.  Without considering semantics, we're
lost.  Only by looking at semantics do we know which of the potential IE
sister forms are really cognate with each of these three.  The first is from
PIE *bheros 'brown' (I'm using the PIE forms in the Oxford Dictionary of
English Etymology); the second is from PIE *bhosos 'uncovered'; and the
third is from PIE *bher- 'carry, give birth'.  Or how about 'ash' from PIE
*os- 'deciduous tree sp'?  Your methodology would also have to match 'ash'
(residue of burning) as well, even though all the IE cognates for *os- are
tree species.  If you're going to make the claim that phonetics alone can
establish cognate sets with a "high probability", then prove it.  Conduct an
experiment in which you do just that and then show us the probabilities so
we can see your evidence of "high probability".  Don't just argue from
logic, use the Baconian model and perform the experiment.

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)