The UPenn IE Tree REVEALED! Your Interjection

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

You interjected in the following:

Brian Scott wrote:
You are mistaken: it was given no dates, even relative ones.

I WROTE: Well, of course, I was going by what Sean Crist wrote.

YOU WROTE:
<<...So the tree which was presented *on this list* had no dates in it, as
was stated on more than one occasion.>>

But most assuredly Sean Crist - FROM THE VERY START - *presented* the tree as
using RELATIVE DATING.

<<Date:         Fri, 13 Aug 1999 01:24:56 -0400
From:         Sean Crist <kurisuto at unagi.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject:      Re: The UPenn IE Tree
Comments: To: Indo-European at xkl.com
In-Reply-To:  <7ba2e233.24e4e281 at aol.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Yes, that is correct.  Note that this rooted phylogeny includes no
intrinsic claim about the _absolute_ dating of the branchings; it is only
a set of claims ABOUT THE RELATIVE DATING.
...Sean Crist>> (CAPS ARE MINE.)

Of course in the quote you chose to "defend" Sean Crist, he does appear to
contradict himself:

<<It was produced strictly on the basis of the characteristics of the
languages without regard to dating>>

And of course dates of attestation ARE absolute dates and that "version" of
the tree was also most certainly *presented* on this list.

In any case - my point was - the web site hopefully makes it unnecessary to
restrict one self to Mr. Crist's reports on the tree.

Regards,
Steve Long

[ Moderator's response:
  In his original posting presenting the Ringe-Warnow-Taylor phylogeny of Indo-
  European (the "UPenn tree"), on 8 August 1999, Mr. Crist said nothing about
  dating, absolute or otherwise.

  After a query from you, Mr. Crist posted the response which contained the
  statement which I interjected into your previous post.  Here is what he had
  to say about the dating of the Ringe-Warnow-Taylor phylogeny, from his post
  of 13 August 1999:

  >On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

  >> I simply must ask some questions about what this means.

  >> 1. I assume the branching off in this 'Stammbaum' carries the inference of
  >> being chronological in the sense of earlier or later separations.  (Rather
  >> than for example the degree of linguistic difference between languages.)
  >> This may go without saying, but I'm just checking.

  >Yes, that is correct.  Note that this rooted phylogeny includes no
  >intrinsic claim about the _absolute_ dating of the branchings; it is only
  >a set of claims about the relative dating.

  Please note that paragraph, compared to what you yourself said above,

  >But most assuredly Sean Crist - FROM THE VERY START - *presented* the tree
  >as using RELATIVE DATING.

  and you will see the difference:  The relative dating is the *result* of the
  algorithm used by Ringe, Warnow, and Taylor, on the data which they presented
  to the algorithm in a computer program.  It was not, and never has been, part
  of the data.

  I am very tired of your argumentative tirades on topics in which you have no
  training.  They are having the very effect of which Mr. Crist was afraid--I
  have received unsubscription notices from very long time participants, just
  prior to Mr. Crist's posting on the subject.

  This is, therefore, the last post of yours on this topic which I will accept.
  --rma ]