Of Trees, nodes, and minimal paths (was Re: Urheimat in Lithuania?)

[Richard M. Alderson III]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Robert Whiting (whiting at cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:

> Personally, I think we do a disservice to linguistics when we say that
> linguistic data can't be quantified so there is no point in trying.  It gives
> the people who turn to linguists for guidance the idea that linguists are
> simply innumerate.  While I feel that there are some categories of linguistic
> data that are not readily subject to quantification (particularly semantic
> change), there are others that are (particularly phonological change), and
> what can be learned from these quantifications should be pursued for what it
> may teach us about some of the conclusions that have been arrived at by
> intuition.  Our tools aren't that good yet that we can afford to ignore
> potential improvements.

Agreed.

The issue I have is with the terminology "innovating" vs. "non-innovating":
*This* is what I think is misleading to a number of non-linguists, who do not
see "non-innovating" as equivalent to "not innovating in the same way".  *I'm*
not altogether comfortable with it in that meaning myself, and I understand
what is meant by it.

								Rich Alderson