Basque statistics - methodological importance

[Jon Patrick]

    Date:       Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:53:42 +0100 (BST)
    From:       Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>

    On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Jon Patrick wrote:

    > I agree that this is what you have expressed clearly in the list. I
    > also think our differing views have been presented along with Lloyd
    > Anderson's observations of some of the issues that can arise from
    > your criteria, that is, they are not entirely value free and they
    > can exclude useful evidence. However I am concerned that you also
    > operate with unspoken criteria, that is from you undoubted rich
    > knowledge of euskara, so that new possibilities are quickly excluded
    > without being given the merit of systematic and comprehensive
    > analysis. I DO NOT assert you do this deliberately. I just think it
    > happens because you view the materials from your particular
    > experiences. Others have the potential to use different
    > deconstructions to arrive at different illuminations, that is those
    > of us whose minds are unclouded by prior knowledge.

    Possibly so.  But, if we are interested only in Pre-Basque, then I still
    don't see how anything much can be concluded by starting with the modern
    Basque lexicon, the vast bulk of which was not in the language 2000
    years ago.

Larry, I've never taken such a position in any uncritical way. I have said we
can start with the Azkue list and apply a series of systematic analyses to
that list moderated in part by the knowledge created by scholars like yourself
and Mitxelena. I have insisted on "slightly"  different criteria to you and I
have insisted on assessing every item on that list giving public account of
just how each element is to be categorised - something that is not available
in the literature of euskara (IMHO). But more importantly I've asserted a
computer based analysis will bring RIGOUR to the process by two essential
characteristics 1-comprehensiveness, 2 consistency of method. I think it is
fair reading over the breadth of your contributions to the list they are
values you uphold. I'm asserting one can achieve them MORE consistently, than
has been done in the past, when a computer is employed to assist in the work,
because it enables one to apply the same analytical methods to ALL examples
one can muster and it can  eliminate the frailties and exception-taking that
ALL of US apply in any work of this type, dare I say of any type of work.
Hence I expect we will collect a little more golddust out of the tailings left
behind by the great  minings performed by yourself and Mitxelena.

cheers
Jon
______________________________________________________________
The meaning of your communication is the response you get