Trivial Truths and Genetic "Patterns"

Ante Aikio anaikio at mail.student.oulu.fi
Wed Jun 27 18:52:01 UTC 2001


On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

> 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.

Extensive borrowing can indeed create patterns, e.g. recurring sound
correspondences resulting from phonetic (and system-based) sound
substitutions (such can be observed in e.g. the Proto-germanic loan words
in Proto-Finnic). However, these kinds of patterns do not suffice, if a
genetic relationship is to be established. Usually the following is
required:

- systematic correspondences can be established in morphology/morphosyntax
(preferrably between entire paradigms)

- the sound correspondences should not be explicable as phonetically or
otherwise predictable substitutions (excludes extensive/massive
borrowing), and must not reflect different stages in the development of
the assumed cognate languages

- the cognate percentage is higher in basic vocabulary than in typical
cases of extensive borrowing (borrowed items often include much "cultural"
vocabulary pertaining to technological/social innovations, local
phenomena, etc.)

Regards,
Ante Aikio



More information about the Indo-european mailing list