Alexis on Wald on Linguistic classification

[Alexander Vovin]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Johanna Nichols wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Alexis Manaster Ramer writes:
 
[on the lack of the documentation for the time limit]
>
>
> (a)  Documentation is not required.  Here's the argument:  Of the language
> families that are both demonstrated and reconstructed (or reconstructable,
> i.e. having regular correspondences and cognates), none are older than
> about 6000 years.
 
Hmmm... How do you arrive to an estimate of 6,000 years? You obviously do
not base you calculations on glottochronology (in order to avoid
unnecessary discussion I should say I don't believe in it either), but
then what is your *objective* method of calculating time depth for
established or reconstructed families? I am pretty much afraid that it is
based on a guess-work, isn't it?
 
 
 In a very few cases the fortunate combination of a
> distinctive and durable grammatical signature enables us to demonstrate
> relatedness farther back than we can reconstruct; the clearest case is
> Afroasiatic.  This is why I usually use language like "the diagnostic
> evidence usually fades out after about 6000 years" and "we can reach back
> some 6000 years and occasionally somewhat farther, perhaps to 10,000
> years".
>
> (b)  The idea of trying to prove this mathematically strikes me as
> misguided; it's just an empirical observation.  If proven and reconstructed
> (or reconstructable) families distinctly older than 6000 years
 
but you still haven't told us how you arrived at this time estimate...
 
 start
> showing up I'll change my estimate accordingly, and I assume others will
> too.
>
 
Therefore, we *must* first find this *objective* method of establishing
time depths for given families. Otherwise it is a perfect case of circular
logic: you come up with a hypothesis that all established families are no
older than 6,000 years (why not 6,600 or 7,000?), and on the basis of this
*first hypothesis* you build the *next hypothesis* that there is such a
limit.
 
> I know that works exist in which correspondences and/or reconstructions are
> proposed for families supposedly much older than 6000 years, but I haven't
> seen any demonstration that the resemblances fall outside the expected
> chance range.
 
I believe that most people would *guess* that Sino-Tibetan is much older
than 6,000, probably 8,000, and Austroasiatic would get quite the similar
*guess-work* estimate. That gives us two more families besides Afroasiatic
that you mentioned yourself. Not so bad for Eurasia, at least. But all
these "estimates" are meaningless unless they are done on a solid
methodological basis. Until this is done, it is pointless to argue about
the existence of time limit. In this sense Alexis is absolutely right: how
one can argue for a time limit while we cannot even to estimate age of the
families on a scientific basis, on not on the basis "I-want-it-be-so".
 
 
  Demonstrating relatedness means showing that the
> resemblances are highly unlikely to be due to chance (or to borrowing or
> universals, though all linguists know how to avoid these) and highly likely
> to be due to common descent.
>
 
This is quite a revolutionary definition of relatedness. I used to believe
that relatedness is demonstrated by recurrent phonetic correspondences
established on the basis of basic vocabulary and/or basic morphology, and
I trust that all major families were done in this way without any appeal
to "chance", as the very existence of this correspondences would rule out
the "chance".
 
 
> This view (which I believe is widespread) does not carry the burden of
> proof.  The burden of proof is on Alexis:  if you maintain there are
> genetic groupings that are much older than 6000 years, proven, and
> reconstructable, please identify some and show what proves their
> relatedness.
>
> Johanna Nichols
>
 
No, I believe that the burden is on you, because you have to demonstrate
in the first place how you arrived to the estimate of 6,000 years.
 
Sincerely,
 
Alexander Vovin
Associate Professor of Japanese
Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures
382 Moore Hall
1890 East-West Road
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, HI 96822
vovin at hawaii.edu
fax (808)956-9515 (o.)
t.(808)956-6881 (o.)