Rate of Change

[Larry Trask]

--On Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:40 am +0000 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

> 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.

And what is that?  So far as I know, all I have ever claimed about the
comparative method is that it cannot produce proto-languages that never
existed.  And that's just true.  Do you want to challenge this?

> I can accept the comparative method and still find fault with those
> conclusions, which you gave in your first post in this thread.

Well, I'm listening.

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

I don't think I read anything into the method.  I'm just reporting it.

Steve, have you ever *done* any comparative linguistics?  Have you ever
grappled with linguistic data in an effort to demonstrate common ancestry,
or to challenge someone else's efforts in this direction?

> The part that you avoided is what I'm after.  It has to do with the
> oneness of PIE.

You mean you don't agree that PIE was a single language?  If so, please
tell us why.

> 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.

So they do, but this insistence on "resemblances" is yours, not mine.  I
have pointed out repeatedly that the comparative method has nothing to do
with resemblances.

Esperanto "resembles" quite a few European languages, but I don't therefore
conclude that it is genetically related to any of them.

> Upon analysis, one discovers a "systematic correspondence" between Romani
> and the lexicon in Anglo-Romani.

No, one doesn't.  One simply discovers a modern English lexicon in
Anglo-Romani -- not the same thing at all.

> 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.>>

OK; let's see if I follow this.

Steve is suggesting that there is something (unidentified) in IE which is
comparable to Anglo-Romani.  I don't agree.

Steve, *what exactly* is there in any IE language or languages that is
similar to Anglo-Romani?  My answer is "nothing".  I can see no IE language
that even vaguely resembles Anglo-Romani -- not even Albanian.  So what are
you talking about?

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)