``mono-descent is implicit in the comparative method ...``

[Herb Stahlke]

Steve, what do you recognize as evidence and how do you evaluate it?  How do
you tell the difference between regular sound correspondences that result from
common descent and what look like regular sound correspondences that result
from extensive borrowing?  For example, the many Germanic/Romance h/k vs. k/k
correspondences.  At this point I understand that you are arguing for dual or
multiple ancestry for individual languages, but you don't address how you
differentiate among the various contributions and how your differentiation
would differ from that of the conventional combination of comparative method
and dialectology.

Herb Stahlke

<<< X99Lynx at aol.com  6/30  9:15p >>>
In a message dated 6/27/2001 3:51:21 PM, dlwhite at texas.net writes:
<< By the way, since "mono-descent" is implicit in the comparative method,
saying anything along the lines of "I accept the comparative method
but reject mono-descent" is sort of like saying "I'll take the horse but not
the legs". >>

BTW, let's look at that statement: "By the way, since "mono-descent" is
implicit in the comparative method,..."

I have four different historical linguistics textbooks in front of me,
including the admirable one written by Prof Trask.  I don't see a single
definition that says anything about mono-descent.   I do see references to
"systematic correspondence" between two languages.  I don't see anything that
logically demands those "systematic correspondences" be only related back to
only one ancestor.

What Winifred Lehmann writes is that the comparative method "contrasts forms
of two or more related languages to determine the precise relationships
between those forms."  Either as a matter of phonology or morphology, it
seems it is forms, not languages, that are being "contrasted."

If you can describe why or how you think "mono-descent" is implicit in the
comparative method, that might make me think what you are saying is true.

At this point, you might want to take a closer look at that horse you are
selling. It seems those legs are not what you would call factory options.

Going back to your post of 6/22/2001 10:27:51 PM, where you responded to the
hypothesis:

"Situation #1:  Language A shares its ENTIRE 'nominal morphology,
derivational or non-finite verbal morphology,... and categories' with
Language B, but it's 'finite verbal morphology' is shared with no known
language.  RESULT: There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this would
be universally seen as establishing a genetic relationship between A and B."

You responded:

<<Actually, I would be quite happy to call such a language an isolate. It is
not possible, I would hope, simply to ignore in such a case the problem of
where the verbal morphology came from, as if it came out of nowhere, no
problem.  If it is not traceable to Language B, we are not justified in
blithely proceeding as if it is, or ignoring it.>>

Now, it's not the comparative method that is telling you to come to those
conclusions.  The comparative method in the example above presumably
established that "the ENTIRE "nominal morphology, derivational or non-finite
verbal morphology,... and categories" are shared with Language B, as a matter
of systematic correspondence.

It's your decision to doubt whether all those shared features are enough to
establish a genetic relationship.  The comparative method has not prompted or
justified any such conclusion.  It is simply supplied the data.

As far as the world wide absence of mixed or borrowed finite verbal
morphology:  if you consider this as the best and preemptive indication of a
genetic relationship, that conclusion is not "implicit in the comparative
method" either.  You might say that it's a conclusion you've come to because
of the application of the method, but not in any way that it is built-in to
the method.  Not in any way.

Dr White also writes:

<<Excuse me, but last I heard you were not even able to coherently
distinguish between influence and descent.>>

You don't have that quite right either.  My point is that YOU can't
"coherently distinguish between influence and descent."  You are certainly
good at assuming "mono-descent."

But the example above - where you can entertain the possibility that "the
ENTIRE "nominal morphology, derivational or non-finite verbal morphology,...
and categories" can be shared due to "influence" - shows that you are having
some problems with the difference between influence and descent yourself.  In
the hypothetical above, I don't believe you've given any coherent operational
distinction between "influence and descent."

<<I think you are mistaken about who got knocked out inf the first round.>>

Of course!  After all, theoretically - it just couldn't happen.  How many
fingers do you see?

Regards,
Steve Long