rhotacism from Ray Hickey

[H.M.Hubey]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Ross Clark wrote:
>
> I must insist. I deny that anybody uses 1. and 2. in this way. Prove
> me wrong. Embarrass somebody.
 
Lots of people do, and some of them even have PhDs.
 
 
> > Human family members resemble each other. That does not mean that
> > unrelated
> > people cannot resemble each other. And despite the fact that we know
> > both
> > we still consider two people who resemble each other to be related
> > unless
> > there's proof to the contrary.
>
> We do?
 
Of course we do. WE make lots of decisions about the world based on
a kind of a "theory" of everything that we have created about us
based on our life experiences from the moment of birth. Unless we
know the people it is similarity that propels us to thinking such
things.
 
 
> > How many language families has any human experienced? I do not mean the
> > purported/alleged language families.
>
> Since I don't know which entities qualify in your mind as "language
> families" as opposed to "purported/alleged language families", I
> can't answer this. However, on my own understanding of what a
> language family is, any competent historical linguist has experienced
> (has some knowledge of) a variety of language families and of various
> languages not known to be related.
 
But that is not what I asked nor commented on. There lies the
circularity
again. How do we know that they constitute a family?
 
 
> You seem to be suggesting that the empirical base of historical
> linguistics is too small. Unless you have some realistic suggestion
> as to how it could be signficantly enlarged, we have to live with it.
> If that disqualifies it as "science" in your opinion, too bad.
 
No, I am not suggesting that. I am merely stating the reasons for
belief that language families exist, and that we can come to know
them.
 
 
> Calculation of whether resemblances could be due to chance or not
> becomes relevant in distant relationships or borderline cases, about
> which so much argument goes on now. I'm talking about families even
> Lyle Campbell believes in, where there is no argument. In some cases
>
 
It is always relevant. The fact that some people's beliefs can be
based on analogy and resemblance to physics or biological families
or imitation does not change the facts.
 
 (eg Latin and Romance) we have the proto-language through direct
> documentation. We also have recorded histories of many individual
> languages which tell us a lot about how languages change.
 
We have Latin at some stage and its descendants. The others are then
created using analogies, which is what at least some linguists
deny. But they also deny that the reasoning (about all those
resemblances
not being due to chance) is implicitly probabilistic. So then what is
left? It's not analogy, it's not induction, it's not probability!
 
 
> This is not circularity. Mathematical methods can be wrong. A number
 
This is worse than pseudoinduction. Which mathematical method is wrong?
No axiomatic system can ever be wrong by definition.
 
> of different proposals have been made for calculating the probability
> of accidental linguistic resemblances. They give different results.
> Therefore they can't all be right. They may be free of mathematical
> error, but they do not necessarily yield historically correct
> conclusions.
 
It is not the method, it is the person who uses it. If you bash your
finger using a hammer is it the hammer's fault? There are incompetent
people in many places.
 
> On the other hand, one would want to ask the linguist in question
> just what was the basis of his/her certainty that X and Y are _not_
> related.
 
Why ask a person when there are dozens of books which purport to
explain it?
 
>
> Ross Clark
 
--
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=