<Language> Linguistics and Circularity

[H. Mark Hubey]

<><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

IT has been two years, he still hasn't understood what
circular reasoning means.


 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: "H. Mark Hubey" <HubeyH at Mail.Montclair.edu>
 Subject: Re: linguistic features and Circularity
 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:50:21 -0500

 Larry Trask wrote:
 >
 > --------------------Original message------------------
 >
 > On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, H. Mark Hubey wrote:
 >
 > > 5. Over the long-period, beyond what standard linguistics
 > > methodology allegedly cannot have anything to say, we have to use
 > > other methods to arrive at unconventional (but logical and
rational)
 > > conclusions. Why is it that only some features of languages are
used
 > > for geneticity when languages have so many other characteristics?
 > > Because only certain features are valuable in recovering ancestry.

 This happens to belong to the generalities concerning methods of
 HL.

 We have a case like this:

 A: I am Napoleon and this is general Marat who can verify it.
 B: I am General Marat as Napoleon said, and I verify that he is
 Napoleon.

 This is the circularity which for some reason does not seem to get
 through although I have been explaining for years now since the days
 on the language evolution list.

 It is related to a form of argument which a linguist pulled when he
 wrote to me: "This method says that languages A and B are related but
we know
 it is not so."

 This method of course, was, the use of unobjectionably objective
 mathematics. OF course, it is backwards, aside from being circular.

 IT goes like this:

 1. We have some heuristic rules which we use.
 2. According to these heuristic rules, IE languages are all genetically
 related.
 3. Then using this idea backwards: since the IE languages are proven to
 be genetically related, we now know using this knowledge that the
 heuristics rules are the one and only one way of "recovering ancestry".

 Mr. Trask, I am not going to make the other mistakes I made on other
 lists and let this get out of hand. NO evasion, no bluffing, no
argument by
 repetetion, no argument from ignorance. Only the blunt truth.

 Which part of this is not clear?

 Perhaps we can now discuss these heuristic rules. And please no
 arguments of the type "it is obvious". Let us at least do a little
background
 reading  like epistemology, philosophy of science, or even a little
logic even if  not probability theory.

 PS. I deleted the rest of the red herrings.

 I will reply to them separately and under a separate thread so we
 don't continue to get mixed up in endless labrynths and confusion.

 Please answer the post directly. Which part don't you understand?

 --
 Best Regards,
 Mark
 -==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 hubeyh at montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Copyrights and "Fair Use":     http://www.templetions.com/brad//copyright.html
"This means that if you are doing things like comment on a copyrighted work, making fun of it,
teaching about it or researching it, you can make some limited use of the work without permission.
For example you can quote excerpts to show how poor the writing quality is. You can teach a
course about T.S. Eliot and quote lines from his poems to the class to do so. Some people think
fair use is a wholesale licence to copy if you don't charge or if you are in  education, and it isn't.
If you want to republish other stuff without permission and think you have  a fair use defence, you
should read the more detailed discussions of the subject you will find through the links above."