reality of PIE

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/14/00 4:08:53 AM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk wrote:

<<You are, I'm afraid.  The statement above is true not just because all
linguists believe it: it is true by definition.  Languages which do not
descend from a common ancestor are not genetically related.>>

But notice what you are saying here.

By calling this definitional, you are saying really it doesn't matter whether
even one linguist BELIEVES it or not - if it is true by definition.  Just
like assumptions in a geometry proof, you don't need to BELIEVE the side of
triangle A = the side of triangle B.  All you need to do is PROCEED AS IF....

"Let x = y" is the way we've phrased it since Pythagoras.  The Greek
geometrists would politely ask the observer to "allow" x = y, for the sake of
proceeding with the proof.  A wonderfully civil approach perhaps worth
emulating.

This is all aside from a definition's relevance to the real world.  To the
extent you never find equal sides in the real world, your definition and also
your "proof" may have no real world application.

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk also quoted:
> and that therefore English has a
>  different relationship to French and Italian, not an identical one

...and then larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk replied:
<<We already have a perfectly adequate vocabulary to describe this state of
affairs: English has borrowed a lot more words from French than from Italian.
Or, to put it more formally, the influence of French upon the English lexicon
has been vastly greater than that of Italian.

This statement is both fully adequate and completely explicit.  What is the
point of inventing non-existent "relationships", and confusing these with
genetic links?>>

Well, that's also a matter of definition.  What you described - the influence
of French on English - was a relationship in a certain, normal sense.  Some
folks are related by marriage.  You are just saying here that 'relatedness'
must be 'genetic.'  However, the 'relationship' you are describing between
French and English is HARDLY 'non-existent.'

No reason to usurp every word that derives from 'relate," is there?  Even
biological geneticists use the word 'relationship' in its normal sense.  Why
not let 'relatedness' be a restricted technical term.  But let 'relationship'
retain its good, sensible, normal, understandable and very useful wider
meaning.  "Allow" that, if you would.

But all this also brings up the issue of 'reification.'  As we have been
reminded on this list in the past, we can get carried away and start
believing our working concepts are real flesh and blood things.

We already know that a language itself may be a "non-existent" entity.  I
don't need to cite Gaston Paris on the undefinablity of the real world line
between French and Italian.  Just do a word search of the IE list archive
entering the phrase "reification" and you'll see plenty of evidence from
Prof. Trask on just how theoretically intracable the idea of a "language"
really is.

So, it seems rather odd to be fretting here about inventing 'non-existent
relationships.'  Especially since the relationships we are talking about are
between what appear to be 'non-existent' entities.

After reading those old 'reification' posts, you might begin to feel as if we
are arguing here about whether Snoopy is or isn't - technically - Charlie
Brown's dog.

Regards,
Steve Long