One Step at a Time

[Larry Trask]

--On Sunday, July 22, 2001 3:31 pm +0000 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

[LT, on Muke's question]

> <<What Muke is asking about is a *single* language, with two classes of
> verbs, which gives rise to some daughters.>>

> Then why did Muke write "those from a language X that conjugated one way
> and  those from a language Y that conjugated another way?"  The point I
> believe of  the hypothetical was two lines of genetic descent.

Sorry; not relevant.  A language is a language -- that is, it is *one*
language.  How the language got that way is irrelevant.  Once it exists, it
is a single language.  If it gives rise to several daughters, at least some
of which are amply recorded, then we can reconstruct that single ancestral
language as usual -- including its verb classes, if it had any.  But the
comparative method can't tell us anything about how that proto-language
came into existence -- unless, of course, the proto-language itself has
attested or reconstructed relatives, in which case we can apply the
comparative method again to obtain a still more remote reconstruction.

However, if the first proto-language did not in fact descend by divergence
from a single ancestor, then we can't possibly apply the comparative method
a second time, because the conditions for applying the comparative method
are not met.

> And the key here is the assumption that there is only one ancestor
> language  somewhere along the line.  That assumption is NOT justified by
> the  comparative method, which yields only ancestor forms.  The idea that
> there  has to be one "parent" somewhere comes from a different theory.

Steve, for the seventeenth time: if there was not a single ancestor, then
the comparative method simply cannot be applied, and nothing can be
reconstructed.  Why is this simple idea so hard to grasp?

> If two languages can each contribute genetically distinct classes of
> verbs to  one "daughter" language, then they can each contribute those
> classes to  multiple "daughter" languages.

Really? How do you know that?  Can you cite a single example of such a
thing?  I'm pretty sure you can't.

However, if such a thing ever did happen, then the resulting languages
would not constitute a language family; they would not exhibit the required
systematic correspondences; and nothing could be reconstructed.

> There does not have to be a
> single language  intervening, only original unitary ancestor forms coming
> from different  earlier languages.

Fantasy, I'm afraid, so far as anybody knows.

Look, Steve.  Do you remember the technique we all learned in school for
extracting the square root of a number with pencil and paper?  (Well, at
least my generation did.)  Now, take the number <minus seven> and try to
extract its square root by the familiar technique.  You will fail, and any
result you get will be gibberish.  Why?  Because, if we start with a
negative number, then the conditions for applying the familiar technique
are not satisfied, and any attempt at applying it anyway will return
nothing, or at least nothing but rubbish.

Well, the same is true of your scenario.  If you take a bunch of languages
which do not descend by divergence from a single common ancestor, then the
conditions for applying the comparative method are not satisfied, and any
attempt at applying it will return nothing -- or at least nothing but
rubbish.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[LT]

> << The comparative method has nothing to say about the origin of a
> proto-language, unless there are yet further languages that can be
> compared  with it normally.>>

> But that's not true, for a number of reasons.  One is that the "further
> languages" may be forced into a single parent based on a particular
> method of  family tree construction.

Steve, I simply despair of you.

> In fact, when the comparative method has "nothing to say" about the
> origin of  certain forms, the tree model has often taken over and
> assigned those forms  to the parent in any case.

Steve, your postings are becoming wilder and wilder.  Before now, I could
at least see where your misunderstandings lay -- I think.  But this time I
can't.  This passage strikes me as perfectly demented.

> So that Prof Trask's
> "further language" will  actually not be recognized as evidence of "the
> origins of the
> proto-language."

All I meant was this.  If we have some Germanic languages, then we can
reconstruct Proto-Germanic.  But we can't go any further than
Proto-Germanic, unless we have some relatives of Proto-Germanic -- say,
Proto-Celtic and Proto-Slavic.  If we have these too, then we can perform
comparative reconstruction again and get Proto-Indo-European.  If we don't,
though, we can't, and Proto-Germanic is as far as we can go.

[much snipping]

> It is the assumption of single parentage that turns "other" genetic
> strains  into non-genetic forms.  This is the circular effect that can
> erase the  possibility of multple ancestors, even if it is there.  But
> the comparative  method itself might possibly support EITHER conclusion.

No, Steve.  This is false.  I'm afraid you simply do not understand the
comparative method at all.  You still regard it as some kind of Ibistick.

Well, I've done my best, to no avail.  I'm signing off from this thread
now.  I'll leave it to others to pursue this fruitless discussion, if they
want to.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk

Tel: (01273)-678693 (from UK); +44-1273-678693 (from abroad)
Fax: (01273)-671320 (from UK); +44-1273-671320 (from abroad)