The Single Parent Question

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/27/2001 12:29:59 AM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk writes:
<< 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? >>

Yes.

There are perhaps a number of ways in which the comparative method might
"produce" a language or a part of a language that that never existed.  There
is perhaps one way that is relevant to this discussion.

If you assume only one parent where there was more than one parent, the
comparative method can be used to reconstruct a language that never existed.

If a language family "inherited" from more than one prehistoric parent, the
comparative method will not be able to distinguish more than one parent - IF
you assume only one parent.  If you assume all reconstructible features
descended from one parent - where there were actually multiple parents - you
will reconstruct a language that never existed.

How does the comparative method tell if there was more than one parent
language?  It depends on the assumption one makes from the start -  I think
its ability to see multiple descent is canceled out by the single parent
assumption.  It will show "systematic correspondences" but has no way of
distinguishing multiple descent for those correspondences.  The comparative
method is a powerful tool, but even the Hubbell can't see the far side of the
moon.

Without the single parent assumption, I suspect the comparative method could
also support explanations that include multiple "genetic strains."  In which
case, the method would produce data that could be used to reconstruct one or
multiple parents.  In which case, one of those two reconstructions would be
false.  And that would be one way the comparative method could be used to
reconstruct a proto-language that never existed.

<<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?>>

This won't help you here.  I won't ask if you've ever argued a science case
in Federal Court or ever did plasma analysis or worked on neural systems or
did any high-order economic analysis.  You've claimed an extremely high level
of certainty with regard to the reconstruction of proto-languages.  I'm
looking at the scientific validity of that claim.  That demands that the
process should be rational and reproducible.  If you're saying I'm missing
something, spell it out.  But not with the conclusions or unexplained
assumptions that you have been relying on so far.  And I assume you aren't
claiming any kind of unique psychic powers in your use of the comparative
method that are beyond ordinary comprehension.

Regards,
Steve Long