reconstruction methodology

[Robert R. Ratcliffe]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
H.M.Hubey wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original
> message----------------------------
> Robert R. Ratcliffe wrote:
> >
>
> How do we test it then?-- By
> > implication. Each reconstruction (of a proto-phoneme for example)
> has
> > implications for the whole system of the proto language (the whole
> > phonological system, eg), for the development path leading from the
> > proto-language to the attested languages (the sequence of sound
> changes,
> > eg), and for the forms of the reflexes in the descendant languages.
> > Only the last is directly observable, of course, and only this real
> data
> > can be used to rule out a proposed reconstruction absolutely.
>
> But here is where the iteration comes in. The first attempt at
> reconstruction of a protolanguage *X will be based on N languages.
> If we add the (N+1)st language then *X might have to be changed.
 
That's right.  It happens all the time. I'll quote something to the
point:"We find in this development an exact parallelism to the manner in
which scientific ideas generally arise, develop and change.  They are
created to point out the common part in a variety of observed
phenomena... At first almost any idea will do.. afterwards, the
inconsistencies of the first trial make themselves felt; the first idea
is then changed to meet better the new requirements.  For a shorter or
longer time the facts and ideas may remain in accord, but the
uninterrupted increase in empirical knowledge involves sooner or later
new fundamental alterations of the general idea, and in this way there
is a never-ending process of adaptation of ideas to facts." (Wilhelm
Ostwald, from the article on chemical element in the Encyclopedia
Brittanica, 1911)
 
>
 
> We might find another language y to add to the family. How many
> correspondences do we need?
>
> Even worse, if the similarity of the language to other languages is
> not considered, it will be added to the most established, largest
> family, and it will continue to snowball.
 
I don't believe this happens very often. It generally seems to take a
long time before specialists in an established family are willing to
accept newly described or newly discovered languages as members of the
family. It was a while before Hittite was accepted as IE. And it has
certainly taken a long time for Semitists to recognize that their family
is simply part of a larger family whose other members are found in
Africa.
 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert R. Ratcliffe
Senior Lecturer, Arabic and Linguistics,
Dept. of Linguistics and Information Science
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Nishigahara 4-51-21, Kita-ku
Tokyo 114 Japan