What is Relatedness?

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I quoted Syd Lamb:
> One of the criticisms that came up often when I asked some linguists to
> comment on the tree was that it mixed apples and oranges.  And cherries.
> Syd Lamb wrote in a private message (repd w/permission) that lexical,
> phonological and morphological items "are largely independent of one
> another in how they are involved in change. ..."

In a message dated 1/25/00 8:44:27 PM, Sean Crist replied:

**That's not true.  For example, if a language inflects with suffixes and
then undergoes phonological changes eliminating certain segments
word-finally, this can result in the loss of morphological contrasts
(thus, phonological and morphological change are not independent).**

Sean Crist returned to Prof. Lamb's quote:

> "...Hence a tree constructed on purely phonological grounds, for IE or
> Uto-Aztecan, or any complex family, will come out quite different from one
> constructed on purely lexical grounds, and both will differ from one
> constructed on purely morphological grounds."

Then Sean Crist replied:
**The assumption you made was that lexical, morphological, and phonological
change operate independently of one another _within_ a language.  Here,
you're talking about something else: you're talking about interaction
_between_ languages.**

I'll forward your post to Prof Lamb and perhaps he'll want to reply.  But I
have every reason to believe the two quotes above were connected since 1)
they are connected and 2) as I said in the post this is Lamb's reaction to
the UPenn tree - not an individual language.  In fact, I believe if you had
read the two parts together as they were posted, that would have been clear
to you.

I do also want to point out that the division between phonological, lexical
and morpological come out of the UPenn report and treats them as separate
pieces of evidence with different ramifications as to their value as genetic
proof.

I believe I was qouting someone else here:

> There's no question that morphology can reflect different genetic
> relationships than lexical or phonological items.

**I wouldn't use the term "reflect" here, since that indicates that we're
talking about some reality here.  A language has one genetic affiliation
and not another.**

And of course, since linguistic analysis first began, some of those "genetic
affilations" have sometimes changed.  That's because genetic affilation among
languages is not something we can see first hand.  It is always inferred.  It
is always dependent on secondary evidence.  The items of lexical, etc.,
evidence I mentioned above are not THE genetic relationship between whole
languages.  They are pieces of evidence accumulated to show that
relationship.  If one lexical or morphological item alone were enough to show
a genetic relationship, that would be different - but obviously it's not,
based on the UPenn tree.

So you can use any term you prefer, but "refects" is fine with me -
physicists use it to talk about evidence "reflecting" the presence of
gravity.  No affront should be taken.

<<Acknowledging it is a very different thing from claiming that a _correct_
account can involve a language having one genetic affiliation for its
lexicon and another for its morphology; that idea is simply incoherent.>>

I don't even know if this has been ever been tested in any way but... if the
UPenn tree methodology were conducted in this manner (lexical separately,
etc.)  and the evidence actually was that these languages showed "one genetic
affiliation for its lexicon and another for its morphology" - then you are
faced with some alternatives.  One is saying you believe the opposite is true
but you have no proof of it.  Or perhaps saying that there is some problem
with the UPenn methodology - since it should show the same affilation for all
three? Or you can simply disregard it because it doesn't fit preconceived
notions.   But that would NOT be "the right way to think"?  Right?

That's always the biggest problem with objective evidence.  It doesn't always
do what we expect - or want - it to.

I'll pass your comments on to Prof Lamb and see if he has any response.

Regards,
Steve Long