Trivial Truths and Genetic "Patterns"

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/22/2001 12:44:17 AM, hstahlke at gw.bsu.edu writes:

<< There's an almost trivial sense in which Steve has to be right, but I think
he's taken his case beyond that point.  Having worked on Niger-Congo languages,
especially those of the eastern half of West Africa, I've been faced with the
question of where to begin....  As Bill Welmers used to say, "You get to the
point where you know that these language can't be unrelated."  Of course, he
would also add that you then start using the comparative method to work out the
relationships and make sure they're there.  We're dealing with different orders
of hypothesis.  Using some careful lexicostatistics gives you a reasonable
hypothesis, but then applying the comparative method takes you to a much
stronger one.  As I said, this is an almost trivially obvious point. >>

Well, of course, my question was, at that point, did you ever consider the
hypothesis that the language had two ancestral language groups to whom it
"can't be unrelated."

But, in any case, believe me, what you've described is not trivial at all
when you're dealing with some very 20-20 hindsight style explanations.  Larry
Trask's explanation of why languages can't have more than one genetic
ancestor typically offer the conclusions as if they were explanations.

In another post I tried to ask why one "systematic correspondence"  - which
would alone have been considered enough to establish a "genetic' relationship
- should be considered non-genetic because of the presence of another "more
genetic" systematic correspondence.

I was obviously referring to a situation where both "genetic" and
"non-genetic" elements both create what would ordinarily be called
"patterns."  (The kind of patterns you might see even if, for example, the
hypothesis you described in your post about relatedness ended up being wrong.)

Here's Larry Trask's reply.  Note that below "miscellaneous common elements"
aren't patterns.  Only genetic patterns have "patterns."

In a message dated 6/22/2001 10:44:59 PM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk writes:

<<We do not recognize genetic links on the basis of miscellaneous elements:
instead, as always, we rely entirely on patterns....

It is patterns that demonstrate common ancestry, not the presence of any number
of miscellaneous common elements....

We do not recognize genetic links on the basis of miscellaneous elements:
instead, as always, we rely entirely on patterns....

It is patterns that demonstrate common ancestry, not the presence of any number
of miscellaneous common elements...

And Albanian is not Greek, Romance, Slavic, Hungarian or Turkic, even though
elements of these origins greatly outnumber the inherited elements....

It is a distinct branch of IE, because this is the only conclusion permitted by
the patterns we observe....

Patterns, patterns, patterns.>>

There may be an explanation for the one only parent rule.  But this cannot be
it.

As you were kind enough to concede, you have to see patterns BEFORE you even
apply the comparative method.  Heck, borrowing creates patterns.  "Patterns"
therefore CANNOT explain the difference between genetic and non-genetic
relationships.

Regards,
Steve Long