Excluding data

[Jon Patrick]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:13:04 +0100 (BST)
> From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>

> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Jon Patrick wrote:

> [on my comments on Basque <taup> `sound of a heartbeat']

>> 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.

I apologise for this statement it should have read "may have high correlation"

> Jon, I am baffled by your persistence on this point.

> I have made it perfectly clear that my criteria for selecting words are
> non-phonological in nature, as indeed they must be.

I agree you have made this point.

> I cannot possibly
> select words according to predetermined phonological criteria in order
> to make a study of the phonological properties of the result: that would
> be pointless.

I agree it would be entirely unilluminating as it would produce a circular
result.
I'm concerned that the current extent of the thesis on early Basque phonology
is already based on the subset of data restricted by your non-phonological
criteria. This thesis is the basis of many of your comments as immediately
below and I muse over the question which should come first, the rules that
declare a word's form
to be "curious" or the systematic and rigourous analysis of all the words.

> I exclude <taup> because of its very late first attestation and because
> of its limited distribution in the language.  That the word has such a
> curious phonological form does not surprise me, but its form has nothing
> to do with its exclusion.

    <snip>

> But I'm not interested in "the whole picture".  I'm only interested in
> the forms of Pre-Basque words, and the vast majority of modern Basque
> words did not exist in Pre-Basque.

Well I'm interested in the "whole picture" of early basque.

> Anyway, we have no words which are "only ancient Basque".  If a word is
> not recorded in the historical period, then it simply does not exist, as
> far as we are concerned, and it is not available for examination.

Too true, we onyl know somethign is "early' because we have something that we
believe is  modern equivalent. For the most part the story begins in the now
and is developed backwards in time- you know that- I know that- and so the
Azkue list is an important step along the way, in fact it is one of the major
stopping off points.

> [LT]

>>> But the generalizations can come only after the list has been compiled
>>> in the first place.  We are talking about how the list should be
>>> compiled, not about the generalizations that will emerge from it --
>>> though, as I have pointed out often, I *think* I have a pretty good idea
>>> what those generalizations will look like -- though I'm prepared to be
>>> surprised on occasion.  But, once more: I *never* exclude a word from my
>>> list because it doesn't match any generalizations about form which I may
>>> have in mind.

>> I've never asserted that you did. However I do think that your
>> criteria are designed to create an analysis that is more strongly
>> consistent with the generalisations you "think you have a pretty
>> good idea" about.

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

Ok tell us what all your "pretty good ideas are" and we will see how much of
it you revise in your future presentations.

>> My comment is that the human mind is more frail
>> than we give it credit and a computer based analaysis helps us be
>> more rigorous in our undertakings. It is unwarranted that you imply
>> I present it as a tool of magic.

> What I'm objecting to is your apparent suggestion that taking the words
> off the page and putting them into a database on a computer somehow
> frees us from the necessity of choosing criteria for selecting words for
> whatever purpose we have in mind.

I've never said that Larry and In fact I believe I've indicated quite the
opposite.

> Databases are easier to work with
> than paper, but they are useless until we choose to do something with
> them, and that means selection according to criteria determined by the
> human investigator.

I agree entirely. In fact I know about that problem better than most -its part
of my job - Information Systems.

>> I think we have seen an example of
>> the extensiveness if not rigour of method that the computer can
>> assist us with from the small analysis of the consonant cluster
>> <-ltz> I presented in the previous message.

> I have already agreed that it is helpful to have a convenient and fast
> way of answering questions like "what attested Basque words end in
> <-ltz>?"  But the result obtained is meaningless until it is
> interpreted.  In this case, it is trivial to show that, of the four
> words turned up, only <beltz> `black' can plausibly be projected back to
> an early stage in a form exhibiting this final cluster -- exactly the
> conclusion I had already reached without using a database.

And without analysisng the data, I may say. Next time you may not be so
fortunate -which is exactly my point - the computer helps us do a much more
rigorous and comprehensive analysis.
Jon
______________________________________________________________
The meaning of your communication is the response you get