Linguistic classification

[Larry Trask]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Alexis Manaster Ramer writes:
 
[snip]
 
> Rather, I accept Eric Hamp's well-known (at least I HOPE it is
> well-known) position that NO list of differences between two
> languages can be an argument against their relatedness.
 
I would say that nothing whatever could be an argument against a
relationship, and that proving the absence of a relationship is a
logical impossibility.  It is always possible that certain languages
are ultimately descended from a common ancestor, but that all traces
of that common origin have long since been obliterated.
 
> The only thing that has any meaning to a comparative linguist is
> points of agreement (correspondence) sufficient to demonstrate a
> relationship.  So long as these exist, we cannot take any points of
> disagreement no matter how numerous as contradicting the hypothesis
> of a relationship.
 
Agreed.
 
> Again, I am not going to go into whether the points of agreemnt I
> have identified are sufficient (that is ANOTHER topic); I only would
> like to know what people think about the question of whether
> diffrences or disagreements can ever in principle be used to argue
> against a relationship.
 
Again, nothing can argue against a relationship -- but the evidence
offered in support of a proposed relationship can certainly be shot
down in flames.
 
[snip]
 
> Note II: Hamp's and my position assumes that the burden of proof is
> always on the advocates of a relationship, and that therefore its
> opponents can do no better than to cast doubt on the evidence cited
> by the proponents--but cannot go further to provide evidence against
> the relationship.
 
Agreed, but why is this interesting?  If you offer genealogical
evidence that you are closely related to me, I might be able to shoot
down that evidence.  But I cannot prove that you and I are unrelated
at any level later than the First Family.  So what?  Does that fact
*alone* make our possible relatedness an interesting question, one
worth pursuing?
 
> Note III: It seems to me that it follows from this that the only way
> to argue against a relationship at all would be to demonstrate a
> DIFFERENT relationship.
 
Absolutely not.  This is Merritt Ruhlen's position, and it is
indefensible.  Such a conclusion follows *only* if we assume at the
outset that *all* languages are related -- and who in his right mind
wants to do that?
 
It is perfectly possible that a language might have no discoverable
relatives at all.  It is even possible that a language might have no
*actual* relatives at all -- that is, we cannot rule out polygenesis
*a priori*.
 
I must say that I consider Note III to be a fallacy, and a dangerous
one at that.  If I cannot prove that I am related to anyone else on
the planet, it does not follow that I must be related to you.
 
> E.g., contrary to what many Hungarian scholars have often asserted,
> Hungarian is not (closely) related to Turkic because it is more
> closely related to Finnish and the rest of Uralic.  But of course
> this only allows us to argue about relative degrees of relatedness.
> We cannot in principle argue against the relatedness of Hungarian to
> Turkic, becuse Uralic as a whole might be related to Turkic.
 
Agreed, but not the same point.
 
Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK
 
larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk