Which is more important?

[H. Mark Hubey]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I already wrote that I am interested mostly in methodology,
and the latest exchanges involving what comparative linguistics
has given me yet another opportunity to learn how "real linguists"
do it. One of the reason I do this is because I am doing research
on AI and the second is because I also do linguistics.

I know that over the years many kinds of AI programs have been
written to do many kinds of things. ONe of the biggest problems
in many fields is that many "experts" don't know how they do
things. I mean that they are not clear enough to produce an
algorithm which is expected; after all they are not computer
scienists. One of the biggest problems in this field is that
nobody ever wants to admit that what they do can be written up
as an algorithm (except those that already know it is so). Even
after evidence is given that even such allegedly nonalgorithmic
and creative processes as painting and composing music are
algorithmic and that computer programs can be written to mimic
humans, there is still a very strong human tendency to deny
the obvious. The reason I write this so I don't have to say it
later.

The latest exchanges involving how comparative linguistics
is apparently done has given me a chance to surreptitiously
observe how real linguists would have done it by reading
writings of real linguists. Since the best way is to observe
people actually doing things instead of asking them what they
would do in such and such a case, I am posting something at the
end of these few lines. What I want to know is how important is
what part of language in the determination of genetic relationships
and why. IT does not matter that I already think I know how
linguists do it, at least how some, or most do it. The discussion
of this list below, should teach me many times more than what
I have learned reading books.

This list, I hope, is enough to create real problems for this
mailing list. It should be. After all, there are so many different
versions of how comparative linguistics should be done, according
to so many authors and practitioners, that it is natural that this
fight should exist. Here it is:

Please read the whole thing before cursing me out :-)

==============================start==========================

1. Meroitic -k, Barea -ge: Fenno-Urgic -k 'to' (e.g. Ingrelian ala-k
'down'.

2. Meroitic -te, Nubian -do locative suffix 'in': Old Turkish -ta, -da
'in' Finnish -ta 'in'

3. Meroitic -k feminine suffix: Mongolian -k-chin feminine of
adjectives; Meroitic kdi 'woman': Turkish kari 'woman' (correspondence
d:r looks better than d:ss but to make the matter even more surprising,
there is one Eastern Turkish language, where the word for woman is
kissi!)

4. Meroitic t demonstrative, Nubian ter 'he' etc. Mongolian tere 'he'
'that', Finnish 'te' 'this one' (I used te instead of ta-unlaut)

5. Old Nubian -ka accusative suffix: Old Turkish -g, -ig, Mongolian -g,
-gi accusative suffix.

6. Old Nubian -ka dative suffix: Old Turkish -qa, -ke dative suffix

7. Old Nubian -n(a) genitive suffix: Mongolian -in, -n, Fenno-Ugric -n
genetive suffix.

8. Old Nubian -r 'intentive' verbal suffix; Old Turkish -r, Finno-Ugric
-r factitive verbal suffix.

9. Meroitic tar 'give' causative verbal affix (according to Dr. Priese)
Old Nubian tir 'give' causative verbal affix: Old Turkish -tur 'give'
causative verbal affix

10. Old Nubian -a participle, conjunctive converb: Old Turkish -a
conjunctive converb

11. Old Nubian -ra predicative converb: Mongolian -ra final converb

12. Old Nubian -sa verbal participle praeteriti: Mongolian -san
participle praeteriti

13. Old Nubian -s verbal suffix, praeteritum: Fenno-Ugric -s verbal
suffix, praeteritum (cf. Old Nubian ki-s-in 'you came' with Wogulian
min-s-en 'you came')

14. Old Nubian -men (-m-en) negation of verbs: Old Turkish -ma negation
of verbs

15. Old Nubian -in,-en verbal suffix, 'you' 2 sg: Wogulian -en verbal
suffix 'you' 2. sg.

16. Old Nubian possessive pronoun=genetive of personal pronoun (ir
'you', in-na 'your'): Old Turkish the same ('sen' 'you', san-ing
'your'), Mongolian the same (chi 'you', chinu 'your')

17. Old Nubian -t, -it deverbal nouns: Old Turkish -t, -it,-id deverbal
nouns

18. Old Nubian -ki deverbal nouns: Turkish -ki abstract nouns,
Finno-Ugric -k deverbal nouns

19. Old Nubian min 'what', Mongolian men 'what': Wogulian men 'what',
Hungarian mi 'what';

20. Old Nubian -guria 'because of': Turkish -gore 'because of'

========================end========================================
This connects Eastern-Sudanic (Old Nubian) with Uralo-Altaic.

OK. I spill the beans: these are from Fritz Hintze's article. That is
the reason for the strange spellings. And in this article, according
to some, Hintze wanted to show that one should not pay attention to
morphemes. I read the article, after having looked for it for months,
and then having waited for weeks after having found where it was.
I think Hintze, contrary to what others say, in this article shows
how intelligent he is by writing in a completely bland manner and
letting the chips fall where they may in the future. As one joke
has it, a rational person believes in God. If he does not exist he has
lost nothing, but what if he does exist? That is probably how Hintze
wrote this, but some think otherwise.

PS. Notice old Turkish tur (give) and Etruscan tur (give).
--
Best Regards,
Mark
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hubeyh at montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=