Comparative Methodology

[Ross Clark (FOA DALSL)]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Alderson [mailto:alderson+mail at panix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2002 1:34 p.m.
> To: HISTLING at VM.SC.EDU
> Subject: Re: Comparative Methodology
>
>
> ----------------------------Original
> message----------------------------
> > I was thinking initially of the simplest case where 2 languages are
> > compared in order to reconstruct the proto-language of
> which the 2 are
> > direct descendants.  This scenario would provide the
> initial guidelines
> > to establishing the requisite phases and steps.  Then, more complex
> > situations could be addressed.
>
> I think you will find that the majority of workers in
> comparative methodology
> do not do binary comparisons; Bloomfield, for example, felt
> that 4 languages
> made up the best size sample for CM.  Binary comparisons do
> not give you any
> check on reasonableness of the growing reconstruction as you
> proceed, indeed
> may mislead you altogether.
>
>
>   Rich Alderson


Can you give an exact reference to where Bloomfield says this?
Of course, there may be situations where only binary comparison is possible
(2-language families are not unknown).
But in the case of a group of several languages known to be related, clearly
any one of them may in principle contribute information to the
reconstruction, so the more you use the better. Is "4" just a point beyond
which juggling more languages would become too complicated?
I assume these considerations would not apply to *establishing* a
relationship, as in Greenberg's work. Or would they?

Ross Clark