Change and What Remains

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
<<When was the last time Larry Trask mentioned in a post the phrase
"the central fact of ceaseless language change" to support any point
he was making about Basque?  Ever? How could the central fact about
Basque escape mention?>>

In a message dated 9/23/99 9:50:52 PM, Larry Trask wrote:

<<Steve, forgive me, but this is just silly.  I have in fact written a
500-page book on the history and prehistory of Basque.  I have also made
frequent references, on this list, to changes in Basque, mainly (though
not wholly) in response to postings from Roz Frank and Jon Patrick.
Whatever are you talking about?>>

Larry, what you know about Basque blows me away every time.  But that's not
the issue.  The question I asked was <<When was the last time Larry Trask
mentioned in a post the phrase "the central fact of ceaseless language
change" to support any point he was making about Basque?>>  I checked some.
Never saw it and you've written a great deal about Basque on this list.

It's a rather specific question.  We're talking about buzz phrases.  And my
point was that you wouldn't use THAT buzz phrase in discussing substantive
matters where you had material points to make.

I'll try to tell you why that might be.

The Antique Roadshow was on PBS the other day and I just happen to overhear a
fellow from Sotheby's telling the owner of some antigue not to worry about
what's disappeared in the piece, because "it's what remains that counts."

To say that change is "the central fact" about IE languages is a curious
thing.  Because if change were the central fact, then you wouldn't really be
concerned about what "remained."  In studies where change IS the central fact
- like chaos and fractals and random number theory - one never mentions
ancestry or "antiquity" or cognation.  (On the other hand, "the central fact"
when classic physics or chemistry looks at change is continuity - i.e., the
conservation of energy and matter.)

When you talk about the <<the evidence for the antiquity of the aspiration in
Basque is large and of various kinds>>, you are not talking about change.
You are talking about what stayed the same.  If you had written "there can be
no evidence for the antiquity of the aspiration in Basque because the central
fact of ceaseless change SWEEPS ALL SUCH EVIDENCE AWAY", it would be a
different story.  But the central fact in your actual statement relates to
the evidence that remained despite change.

It may be hard to see this because sound laws are so much about the rules of
"change" between languages (oops! or whatever they're called).  But if these
were a complete change without something remaining, you'd never recognize any
kind of descent or cognation.  Change would obliderate the evidence.  If
change were as thorough as it is in other areas, there'd be no evidence left
of a PIE.  Or a proto-Basque.  That's what pure change does.  The sound rules
(the predictability of changes) are nothing more than bridges that allow you
to overcome changes and find continuity.

If you find any connection between Basque and proto-Basque, it's going to be
because SOMETHING stayed the same.  That is "the central fact."  Change is
actually only an obstacle to your finding what the connection is between the
present and the past.

In one of my other lives, I'm intensely involved with the American electronic
media.  I see change in language at roaring rates. "Ceaseless change" is not
the news here.  What withstands "ceaseless change" is really the hot
question.  Because in the end that's all that allows us understand each
other.  The sounds and meanings we recognize above the din.

(As far as how this relates to your statement that an ancestor cannot
co-exist with a daughter language, the rate and degree of change is really
the question.  Simply bringing up "ceaseless change" tells us nothing about
whether enough "remained" of ancestor so that it could co-exist with the
daughter.)

I never expected to have a particularly friendly reception on this list to
the approaches I've taken.  I expected to be called far worse than tiring or
silly.  I do hope - or did for a time - that a bit of open-mindedness might
at least give these ideas an accurate hearing - if not necessarily a fair one.

Regards,
Steve Long