rhotacism from Ray Hickey

[Ross Clark]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Date:          Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:21:52 EST
> Reply-to:      hubeyh at montclair.edu
> From:          "H.M.Hubey" <hubeyh at montclair.edu>
> Organization:  Montclair State University
> Subject:       Re: rhotacism from Ray Hickey
> To:            HISTLING at VM.SC.EDU
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Scott DeLancey wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, H.M.Hubey wrote:
> >
> > > Historical linguistics is circular, especially as it is based mostly on
> > > IE.
> > > IT says;
> > >
> > > 1. The set of languages, {x,y,z...} constitutes a family because of
> > > 'regular
> > > sound correspondences'.
> > > 2. 'Regular sound correspondences' indicate a 'language family'.
> >
> > Could you give us a couple of examples of recognized language families
> > that have been established on the basis of this kind of reasoning?
> > There are a few, but it's not the standard methodology at all.
> > Not Indo-European, for sure, which was first proposed and established
> > on the basis of extensive correspondences in morphological paradigms.
>
> Aren't morphological paradigms also part of 'regular sound change"?
 
No, they're not.
 
But more to the point, contrary to what Mr Hubey seems to be
suggesting, the little couplet above is not an instance of circular
reasoning. It's merely the same statement phrased two different ways.
Or rather,  2. is a statement of a general principle, of which 1. is a specific
 application.
 
What Mr Hubey may be trying to articulate is the superficially
circular-looking:
 
1. A,B,C are a language family ===> A,B,C have regular sound
correspondences.
 
2. A,B,C have regular sound correspondences ===> A,B,C are a language
family.
 
But the attribution of circularity rests on a misreading of the
relations between the propositions in 1. and 2. as the same. 1. is a
causal relation -- regular sound correspondences result from the
definition of a language family, plus the fact that sound change is
regular. 2. is a progression from evidence to inference -- we observe
regular sound correspondences, from which we conclude these languages
are a family. (Whether this is an accurate account of what we
actually do is not the question here.) It's no more circular than:
 
1. Patient has measles ===> patient has spots on face.
2. Patient has spots on face ===> patient has measles.
 
This may be rough and ready diagnostic practice, but it isn't a
logical fallacy.
 
Ross Clark