Trivial Truths and Genetic "Patterns"

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/30/2001 5:52:51 AM, alderson+mail at panix.com writes:
<< So that, I think, is the pithy answer to your continued asking of why any
language can't have more than one ancestor under the comparative method:  The
method does not address single languages, but groups of languages, and as was
pointed out by Larry Trask, if we can't build a protolanguage with the
comparative method, the languages in question are *JUST* *NOT* *RELATED*. >>

Then let my rephrase my question.  Can more than one proto-language be
reconstructed from a "group" of languages?  And, if so, then will those
additional proto-languages show up in reconstruction if one assumes before
hand that there was only one proto-language?   If on the other hand the
answer to the first question is no, then why not?

This goes back again to the terms I quoted from Winfred Lehmann: "In using
the comparative method, we contrast forms of two or more related languages to
determine the precise relationship between these forms.  We indicate this
relationship most simply by reconstructing the forms from which they
developed."  (Hist Ling 3d ed, 1992 pb) p 142.

I pointed out the Lehmann's use of the term "forms" rather than "languages"
in the above quote.

The reason was to relate it way back to the hypothetical that Dr White
brought forward where the "nominal morphology, derivational or non-finite
verbal morphology,... and categories" might be shared with one language,
"finite verbal morphology" with another.  Dr White indicated that verb
morphology might have some preemptive claim over those other forms.

But my point was that the presence of those diverging systematic forms would
suggest more than one "proto-language" could be reconstructed at least with
regard to the language that showed both forms.

Regards,
Steve Long