Rate of Change

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
>   We've been through this.  What you call often call "change" is actually
> continuity to me, because you still call what remains "cognate", which means
> there must be something that stayed the same.

JoatSimeon at aol.com replies:
<<-- cognate means "derived from the same source", neither more nor less.
Cognate words in related languages need bear no phonetic resemblance to each
other at all, as such.  Only when the systemic _patterns_ of change over time
>>

But that doesn't contradict what I wrote.  "Systematic patterns of change"
allow one to show that cognates are "derived from the same source."  So there
must be some continuity between the source and what is derived from the
source.  The alternative is no continuity, no relatedness, no cognacy.  All
that becomes obvious when linguists use the word "genetic" to describe
"cognate" relationships.

And I should point out that borrowed words can of course be "derived" from
the same source as a cognate.  The events at the Olympics described in Englis
h as "equestrian" use a word that is obviously "derived" from the same source
as <equus>, but would not be considered "genetically" transmitted and
therefore would not in theory be "cognate."

<<Eg., "pita" (Hindi) and "father" (English) are cognates, as are "pad" and
"foot", despite having no surface similarity at all.>>

If you said "pita" and "brassiere" have no surface similarity, well that
would be different.  If you said "pad" and "philadelphia" have no surface
similarity, that might work.  But "pita" and "father" clearly do have some
prima facie structural similarities.  All these similarities and differences
are clearly a matter of degree.  I would suspect that "found" cognates that
truly have no recognizable resemblances are rare.  And I would suspect that
any attempt to find a systematic pattern of change that included "pita" and
"brassiere" as cognates would not get very far.

Regards,
Steve Long