"mono-descent is implicit in the comparative method ..."

[David L. White]

> BTW, let's look at that statement: "By the way, since "mono-descent" is
> implicit in the comparative method,..."

> I have four different historical linguistics textbooks in front of me,
> including the admirable one written by Prof Trask.  I don't see a single
> definition that says anything about mono-descent.

        Maybe that is because I just made up the term a few days ago.
"Implicit" may be a bit strong, but the comparative method as traditionally
conceived and practiced has never contemplated mutli-descent.

> Going back to your post of 6/22/2001 10:27:51 PM, where you responded to the
> hypothesis:

> "Situation #1:  Language A shares its ENTIRE 'nominal morphology,
> derivational or non-finite verbal morphology,... and categories' with
> Language B, but it's 'finite verbal morphology' is shared with no known
> language.  RESULT: There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this would
> be universally seen as establishing a genetic relationship between A and B."

> You responded:

> <<Actually, I would be quite happy to call such a language an isolate. It is
> not possible, I would hope, simply to ignore in such a case the problem of
> where the verbal morphology came from, as if it came out of nowhere, no
> problem.  If it is not traceable to Language B, we are not justified in
> blithely proceeding as if it is, or ignoring it.>>

> Now, it's not the comparative method that is telling you to come to those
> conclusions.

        The comparative method does indeed tell me that such a fundamental
aspect of a language as finite verbal morphology cannot be treated as
non-existent merely because its origins are problematic.

> The comparative method in the example above presumably established that "the
> ENTIRE "nominal morphology, derivational or non-finite verbal morphology,...
> and categories" are shared with Language B, as a matter of systematic
> correspondence.

> As far as the world wide absence of mixed or borrowed finite verbal
> morphology:  if you consider this as the best and preemptive indication of
> a genetic relationship, that conclusion is not "implicit in the comparative
> method" either.

        Certainly not.  It is based on observation, supported after the fact
by some ratiocination of a sort that Dr. Trask evidently hates ...

> My point is that YOU can't "coherently distinguish between influence and
> descent."

        Yes I can, in a way that explains why finite verbal morphology is
evidenty not subject to borrowing in the same way as nominal morphology.
You just say it's circular when I do, yet still refuse to answer the
question of why language mixture or multi-descent, if it is really so common
as you say, has not led to mixed finite verbal morphologies all over the
place.
        It seems that your basic problem is failure (or refusal) to
discriminate between descent and origin of morphmemes.

Dr. David L. White