Yakhontov

[Alexis Manaster-Ramer]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------


On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Larry Trask wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Alexis Manaster-Ramer wrote:
>
> > Moreover, Larry makes an even bigger mistake (or else someone again
> > misinformed him about what Starostin says).  Specifically, he claims
> > that the Yakhontov method is to look at superficial phonetic
> > similarities. However, Starostin (p. 25-26) clearly says that he
> > (Starostin) is looking at matches based on sound correspondences and
> > all other claims of the Altaic theory (such as morphological
> > analysis, etymology, etc.), and indeed relates words which LOOK
> > nothing alike, but are cognate under the Altaic theory, e.g., Turkic
> > *yapur-gak : Mongolic *lab-c^in : Middle Korean *nip(h).  Since
> > Yakhontov had not published a detailed description of his method, I
> > cannot claim that this is how HE would have used it, but this is
> > certainly how Starostin uses it.
>
> > This goes to the heart of the whole fight about what role phonetic
> > similarity plays in comparative linguistics (Larry claims none at
> > all. I claim a subordinate but important and indeed probably crucial
> > one). But note that Starostin is not doing anything that Larry could
> > object to on this score.  He is NOT using phonetic similarity at
> > all.
>
> Starostin in his book may well be doing exactly what Alexis says.
> I haven't seen the book, only one paragraph of it.

Not "may well have", did.  I don't see why even on a simple
matter of reading a few pages of a Russian text, what I say
has to be doubted.
>
> However, in the Mother Tongue exchange, Sergei was most certainly
> working with mere perceived phonological and semantic resemblances, and
> with nothing else at all.  That is obvious to anyone who reads the
> relevant passage, and that is what got me confused about what Yakhontov
> was saying in the first place.

I think it is rather a case of Starostin trying to say that
Bengtson's comparisons, which you are right are based on
similarity not rules of correspondence, have a considerable
degree of plausibility.  He does not seem to go further
than that.  In fact, does he not say something about the need
for correspondences to be worked out before we could say more?
I know he has said this to me but I dont have the MT articles
at hand.

> Not guilty.
>
Yeah, but one could be a heck of lot MORE innocent.
AMR