One Step at a Time

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/5/2001 2:51:47 PM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk writes:
<< OK, then -- fire away.  But you are defending a position which is wildly,
ludicrously false -- not an easy task. ;-) >>

Typically, your conclusions come first.  You don't have to wait for the
evidence.

<<No.  This is fantasy.  The comparative method does not "assume" any number of
parents at all.  Steve, when we attempt to apply the comparative method to some
linguistic data, we *do not* "assume* in advance that we must be looking at a
single parent....  If there *was* a single parent, then the method will tell us
about it.  Otherwise, the method gives us only a nil return...

Now suppose we tried to apply the comparative method to the resulting
collection of languages -- "collection", because this assembly would *not* be
a family, as we use that term in linguistics.  [SL - The conclusion comes
first, of course.] What would happen?

Suppose,... that Basque and Spanish were to interact in just such a way, and
give rise to half-a-dozen languages, each consisting of a different mixture
of Basque elements and Spanish elements, a couple of thousand years
later...., the method would once again give a nil return.  We could note the
presence of many common elements in the languages under investigation, but we
could not find the required systematic correspondences, and so we could
reconstruct nothing. >>

Let's just start this with a basic question, to be sure you are saying what
you appear to be saying.

If you assume Basque and Spanish are entirely lost and unrecorded in your
example above, and all that is being compared are the "half-a-dozen
languages" you mention...

Are you saying there will be no systematic correspondences to be found among
those "half-a-dozen languages"?

Steve Long