Doing historical linguistics (part 2)

[H.M.Hubey]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Larry Trask wrote:
>
> 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.
 
Ehhh. "craft"?????????????? You mean it is not a science?
 
 
>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
 
No it isn't. A mathematician can tell you how to solve it.
 
> 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
 
I know how to ride bikes and I can tell you how to do it.
 
> they can't find any simple way of explaining the procedure to a novice,
> not because they don't know how to do it.
 
Then there must at least be some "fuzzy rules" but I forgot you
don't like that either. Maybe there are tendencies and propensities
and they can be analyzed using Markov process concepts and you
don't like that either. Nevertheless you are sure they can't be used
despite not knowing what they are and how they can be used.
 
Is this some special form of logic available only to historical
linguists or only to you?
 
Despite all of these problems, nevertheless, you are sure it is
a real science deserving of the Nobel prize and does not need
any improvement whatsoever because it has already reached the
pinnacle of what science can be?
 
Is this the logic and conclusion you expect me to accept?
 
 
> > 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.
 
That again, is the wrong conclusion.
 
What you want to say is this: "I do not know how to construct protoforms
and I do not know anyone else who does."
 
Certainly you cannot know whether or not there can ever be an algorithm
and you cannot know in what manner they might be constructed.
 
> > 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.
 
OK. PRoduce the rules, and I will create the algorithms.
 
 
> > 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".
 
I don't believe that. Once again, you are confusing yourself for the
scientific community.  When someone says "I don't know" it could mean
 
"I don't know but others might know."
"I don't know but probably nobody else knows either."
"I know that nobody knows."
....
 
 
> Scientific activity is not, in general, algorithmic in nature.
 
A lot of people would disagree. For example, the great philosopher
Popper,
or Lakatos.
 
> Algorithms, in fact, are in most cases only useful for obtaining answers
> to practical problems, and not in obtaining new knowledge.
 
YOu might be partially right here, but only that; "might" and "partial".
 
But don't give up hope yet. There is a thing called "data mining" and
"knowledge discovery science". We will lick that problem too :-)
 
Why do you think there are conferences in which people try to create
"artificial scientists" and "artificial intelligence".
 
> Larry Trask
> COGS
> University of Sussex
> Brighton BN1 9QH
> UK
>
> larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk
 
--
Best Regards,
Mark
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hubeyh at montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material  from any computer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=