Excluding data

[Jon Patrick]

"Brian M. Scott" wrote:

    Jon Patrick wrote:

    > This comment is a red herring. My commentaries were not
    > about the inclusion or exclusion of this word in the
    > analysis but that your criteria have high correlation
    > with a model of the phonology that you object to being
    > re-analysed from a different perspective.

    Such a correlation - should it prove to exist - could also result from
    the accuracy of the model, so it cannot in itself cast doubt on the
    criteria.  If you wish to argue that they are methodologically unsound,
    you'll need more substantial reasons than the likelihood that their
    application here will produce unsurprising results.  After all, the
    criteria themselves have *no* correlation with phonological specifics.

Unless of course the phonological specifics we have now have been developed on
just that material in the first place.

    Bearing in mind that the object of study is Pre-Basque, what
    *methodological* objection is there to the initial exclusion of words
    without early attestations

we know that early glossaries/dictionaries do not contain words that did exist
at their time of compilation. So I believe that a word in the list compiled by
Azkue at the turn of this century should be used in any anlsysis unless it can
be shown to be derivative from some foreign source. The default is "basque"
not "foreign".

   and words of limited distribution?

we know some words of limited distribution are in fact the earlier forms of
words. For example, certain words with aspirations are only found in the north
(the  dialects with least speakers) but are believed to be earlier.

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