Apparent violations of historical linguistic laws

[Alan R. King]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Benji Wald says:
 
>None of the above solutions are totally satisfying or above criticism (and
>further research for testing), but I don't think one should throw up one's
>hands and cavalierly talk about
>"apparent about-turns, even in violation of historical linguistic "laws".
>Instead, I think one should
>recognise the challenge to investigate the matter further.   It is the next
>frontier to be crossed in understanding the nature of sound change, and
>indeed the nature of linguistic "laws".  (I guess "laws" has a
>double-meaning, first, man-made/artificial and ultimately fallable attempts
>to explain/account for a phenomenon, which I take to be the point of Alan's
>scare quotes, and, second, the actual principles governing linguistic
>behavior and change, which I take to be the purpose of linguistic research
>and the way linguists channel and DISCIPLINE their curiosity about the
>facts of language.)
 
On a first reading, I agree with much of what this paragraph seems to be
saying, which could even be taken as a summary of what I was trying to say.
 Being a complex statement, however, there is room for many subtle changes
of emphasis among the various points, and some of Benji's wording is
perhaps a little unfair.
 
I don't actually remember "throwing up my hands".  And I would certainly be
in favour of "recognising the challenge to investigate the matter further".
 But the real crux of my message was in these words, reproduced by Benji
but perhaps not read quite in the way I had intended: "apparent
about-turns, even in violation of historical linguistic 'laws'".  The above
"summary" focuses on the word *laws*, and indeed defends the concept
against what is seen as my attack.  But in fact, I was more interested in
the word *apparent*.  
 
The *interesting* thing about problems such as the one I was recalling
(which I didn't claim to have discovered, even though I seem to have made
the mistake of calling it the "see-sea-say" problem rather than the "meet -
meat - mate" problem - silly me!) is that they serve to exemplify the
possibility that what *apparently* happens may be different from what
really does.  We notice that the *apparent* reversal of the merger of
"meet" and "mate" CAN'T be exactly what happened BECAUSE it would violate
the laws which we believe to operate in such cases.  IF on the other hand
the apparent event had, by chance, NOT violated our law, we would not be
aware of a "problem" and in consequence would probably not question the
reality or exact nature of the said event.
 
All the same, I don't think the "laws" (hence, in the last resort, my scare
quotes) ought to be seen as infallible and unassailable, since they do rest
for their validation on observed events (or *apparently* observed ones,
anyway!).  And at the risk of repeating a cliché: we are in a privileged
position when discussing the history of a language as well documented as
English, which makes it easier to "catch ourselves out".  Where most
languages and language families are concerned, it is presumably easier to
get away with our mistakes.
 
As for the emphasised word DISCIPLINE, I am all for it, but there is more
than one kind.  I think that true intellectual discipline should also
encompass a constant preparedness to criticise one's own theories, even
looking for *possible* cracks in the foundations, rather than blindly
building higher and higher.  But then, I happen to think that the ultimate
goal is not to finally discover "all" the laws, but in the process to
arrive at a better acquaintance with the phenomena they attempt to
synthesize.  Fortunately, sometimes this goal is achieved.