Doing historical linguistics (part 2)

[Larry Trask]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, H.M.Hubey wrote:
 
[LT]
 
> > OK.  Here's a problem from my field.  The four major regional variants
> > of the Basque word for `ear' are as follows:
> >
> >         <beharri>
> >         <begarri>
> >         <belarri>
> >         <biarri>
> >
> > So: what's the proto-form?  And what "simple rule" should be invoked to
> > discover it?
 
> I think you should try
 
> 1) reading what is written instead of what you think is written
> 2) explaining what I asked you last year on another list
 
> On the other list and other lists when I ask "experts" to explain
> what rules are used to construct protoforms and why they can't be
> found in textbooks, I notice that there is a lot of hemming and
> hawing.
 
That's because there are no "rules", in the mechanical or algorithmic
sense of the term.  Performing good reconstructions requires both
knowledge of the languages and experience of the craft.  Asking a
linguist how to do reconstruction is not like asking a mathematician how
to solve a differential equation.  It's more like asking a professional
cyclist how to ride a bike.  (Not a good analogy, but the best I can do
off the top of my head.)  Your experts are hemming and hawing because
they can't find any simple way of explaining the procedure to a novice,
not because they don't know how to do it.
 
> It sounds like Truman's refrain about economist; "I wish I had
> some one-handed economists". When I ask for rules on constructing
> protoforms (i.e. algorithms) there is no answer. When I ask why
> the field is soft and fuzzy, people like you get insulted and shout
> that it is a real science.
 
No, not insulted, just exasperated.  And anyway you've already had your
answer: there are *no* algorithms for constructing proto-forms, and
there cannot be.
 
> Either there are rules for constructing protoforms or there aren't.
 
Oh, there are certainly rules, but there are no algorithms.  For
example, given the observed variant forms of the Basque word for `ear',
there is only one reconstruction that obeys all the rules.
 
> My original question is/was why there is no algorithm for producing
> protoforms. Either what you practice is a science or it is not. If
> it is magic you don't have to explain it. If it is science it should
> be possible to see it in writing in some book.
 
No; this doesn't follow.  In chemistry, for example, there are no rules
for discovering new classes of compounds, but chemists frequently
discover new classes of compounds nonetheless, and they are pleased to
call this activity "science".
 
Scientific activity is not, in general, algorithmic in nature.
Algorithms, in fact, are in most cases only useful for obtaining answers
to practical problems, and not in obtaining new knowledge.
 
 
Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK
 
larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk