The Neolithic Hypothesis

[Robert Whiting]

On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

> I wrote:
> <<This is nothing but truisms.>>

> In a message dated 4/10/99 8:47:47 PM, whiting at cc.helsinki.fi wrote:
> <<You do know what a truism is don't you?  Since there are
> indications that you are using a different Webster's than I am,
> my Webster's says that a truism is "a self-evident, obvious
> truth.">>

> I wrote:
> <<And they are contradicted by the very fact that...>>

> whiting at cc.helsinki.fi replied:
> <<And in the next breath you say that "self-evident, obvious
> truths" can be contradicted...>>

> FYI:
> New Oxford Dictionary adds that, in Logic, truism is "a proposition that
> states nothing beyond what is implied by any of its terms."

I'm glad to see that you a learning how to use British dictionaries.
This is a big step for an American.  But it doesn't do any good if
this is simply a means of extending your range of misunderstanding.
"A proposition that states nothing beyond what is implied by any of
its terms" is like "I don't like my tea too hot."  I.e., "too hot"
has no referent beyond what is liked and simply means "I don't like
my tea any hotter than I like it" without ever saying how hot "too
hot" is.  It imparts no new information and is a "truism" in the
trivial sense of the word.

This, however, is fundamentally different from truisms like "the sky
is blue" or "the sun rises in the east," which are simply self-evident
obvious truths.

Now when you label "linguistic change is unpredictable" as a truism,
it is clearly of the "self-evident, obvious truth" type rather than
of the "states nothing beyond what is implied by any of its terms"
type.  Therefore, by labelling it a "self-evident, obvious truth"
you are pleading nolo contendere.  No further proof is needed.

> Without addressing ideas like >language changes except when it doesn't<, I
> must admit that in the past I've been guilty of a few truisms myself.  But
> this is how you can declare a statement a truism and still contradict the
> underlying proposition:

> >From Uniform Rules for Debate, HDS/GUDS(1962)
> "A debator who runs a truism will fail... by jumping to a conclusion made
> necessary by virtue of his definition.  A truism will also be irrelevant
> because it will not be resolving one of the issues that could otherwise have
> been debated."  Since a truism simply restates the premise and is irrelevant,
> "a pleading in the alternative ...allows the challenger to both assert an
> objection to the truism and [at the same time] attack the underlying
> proposition..."

This is all very interesting, but irrelevant because this refers to a
truism used as an argument.  It does not have to do with the truth of
the truism, but with its relevance.  But in the case at hand, there is no
underlying proposition.  The truism is the proposition.  "Linguistic
change is unpredictable" was presented as an observation (much along
the lines of "the sun rises in the east") that is so well documented
that it fits into the self-evident and obvious category (see, e.g.,
H. H. Hock, _Principles of Historic Linguistics_ (Berlin - New
York - Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991 [2nd ed.]), Section 20.5
"The Linguistic unpredictability of change"; if you don't have access
to Hock, you can probably find a similar statement in most any other
handbook on historical linguistics).

But I'm glad that you brought up the question of the relevance of
truisms used as arguments because a really great example of it is
your often-used "walks like a duck..."  Now this is your shorthand
flag for the truism "if X and Y are indistinguishable, then X is
the same as Y," which is of the "states nothing beyond what is implied
by any of its terms" type (i.e., it translates into "if two things
aren't different, they are the same," a simple pairing of one word
with its negated antonym). I'm sure you see this as an incontestable
argument (or else you just like the sound of the words), but those who
have not only read the handbook but also understood it just see it as
an irrelevant truism.

> Functionally consistent with Merriam/Webster's a "truth...too obvious for
> mention."

Don't mention it.

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi