Rate of Change

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/13/2001 10:56:45 PM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk writes:
<< I get the distinct impression that Steve believes that the comparative
method is a sham, a toy that does no more than to spit back the assumptions
built into it in the first place.  'Tain't so, Steve. >>

Larry, you really shouldn't go by your impressions.  Aside from being
incorrect, they are a little inflammatory, don't you think?  Especially if
you choose to pick up my points selectively as you have.

It's not the comparative method that I'm criticizing.  It's the conclusion
you come to that you claim OBVIOUSLY follow from the comparative method.   I
can accept the comparative method and still find fault with those
conclusions, which you gave in your first post in this thread.

It's not the comparative method but what you read into it.  After all, even
the devil can quote Scripture to his purpose.

The part that you avoided is what I'm after.  It has to do with the oneness
of PIE.  I'll repeat what I wrote here so that when you get around to it, you
can get past your misinformed impressions, and we can get to the meat of the
matter:

<<The problem I perceive and have been getting at does not arise after a
judgment is made about "genetic" relationships.  It happens before.  Romani
and Anglo-Romani obviously resemble one another in some way.  Upon analysis,
one discovers a "systematic correspondence" between Romani and the lexicon in
Anglo-Romani.  But does that yield a genetic relationship? No, because one
only gets one genetic relationship per customer?  Why?  Because a language
can only represent one "system"?  But Anglo-Romani represents two systematic
correspondences, and therefore presumably two different systems.  In
Anglo-Romani, the problem is clear, because the language is historic.  In IE
languages, the problem is hidden in prehistory.>>

Regards,
Steve Long