The Single Parent Question

[Larry Trask]

--On Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:30 pm +0000 X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:

[LT]

> So far as I know, all I have ever claimed about the
> comparative method is that it cannot produce proto-languages that never
> existed.  And that's just true.  Do you want to challenge this? >>

> Yes.

OK, then -- fire away.  But you are defending a position which is wildly,
ludicrously false -- not an easy task. ;-)

> There are perhaps a number of ways in which the comparative method might
> "produce" a language or a part of a language that that never existed.
> There is perhaps one way that is relevant to this discussion.

> If you assume only one parent where there was more than one parent, the
> comparative method can be used to reconstruct a language that never
> existed.

No.  This is fantasy.  The comparative method does not "assume" any number
of parents at all.  And it can no more conjure up an ancestral language
that never existed than it can extract cube roots.

Steve, when we attempt to apply the comparative method to some linguistic
data, we *do not* "assume* in advance that we must be looking at a single
parent.  If there *was* a single parent, then the method will tell us about
it.  Otherwise, the method gives us only a nil return.

Steve, where are you *getting* this stuff from?

> If a language family "inherited" from more than one prehistoric parent,
> the comparative method will not be able to distinguish more than one
> parent - IF you assume only one parent.  If you assume all
> reconstructible features descended from one parent - where there were
> actually multiple parents - you will reconstruct a language that never
> existed.

Steve, this is wildly false.

This is roughly the scenario proposed for Celtic by all those
archaeologists, the scenario that led to the introduction of this thread in
the first place.

Now, Steve, what you are claiming is the following.  Two or more quite
distinct languages can meet and mingle, and can as a result give rise to a
variety of offspring, each daughter consisting of a different admixture of
features from the original languages.  Right?

Now, do you know of any instance in which such a thing has happened?
I don't.  I have never heard of such a thing -- except as a fantasy
scenario -- and I do not believe there is any known case of such a thing.
And I have the gravest doubts that any such event is even possible.

But suppose it is.  Suppose such a thing did manage to happen.  Suppose, to
make it concrete, that Basque and Spanish were to interact in just such a
way, and give rise to half-a-dozen languages, each consisting of a
different mixture of Basque elements and Spanish elements, a couple of
thousand years later.  Now suppose we tried to apply the comparative method
to the resulting collection of languages -- "collection", because this
assembly would *not* be a family, as we use that term in linguistics.  What
would happen?

Steve concludes that the method would, by some arcane means known only to
him, automatically conjure up a single ancestral language for the whole
assembly.  But would it?

No.  It would not.  Instead, the method would once again give a nil return.
We could note the presence of many common elements in the languages under
investigation, but we could not find the required systematic
correspondences, and so we could reconstruct nothing.  Therefore, we could
not demonstrate common ancestry for the languages -- reasonably enough,
since, in the scenario we are considering, the languages are *not* related,
in the sense of 'related' which is relevant to the comparative method,
where 'related' means 'descended by divergence from a single common
ancestor'.

For the seventeenth wearisome time, let me remind you of the case of
Tlingit and Eyak-Athabaskan: a huge number of shared elements, and
undoubtedly some kind of shared prehistory, but no systematic
correspondences, therefore no reconstructed ancestor, and therefore no
proof of common origin.  I note that Steve has remained silent on this
splendid example throughout the discussion.

As cases like this one demonstrate beyond dispute, the comparative method
cannot reconstruct ancestral languages that never existed.

> How does the comparative method tell if there was more than one parent
> language?  It depends on the assumption one makes from the start -  I
> think its ability to see multiple descent is canceled out by the single
> parent assumption.  It will show "systematic correspondences" but has no
> way of distinguishing multiple descent for those correspondences.  The
> comparative method is a powerful tool, but even the Hubbell can't see the
> far side of the moon.

And what is this last remark supposed to mean?

Steve, if there there never was a single common ancestor, then there simply
cannot be any systematic correspondences.  Simply shoveling lumps of
language A and lumps of language B into a bag and labeling the bag
'language C' does not produce any systematic correspondences.  It produces
only shared elements -- no more.  And the comparative method cannot be
applied to mere shared elements.

> Without the single parent assumption, I suspect the comparative method
> could also support explanations that include multiple "genetic strains."
> In which case, the method would produce data that could be used to
> reconstruct one or multiple parents.  In which case, one of those two
> reconstructions would be false.  And that would be one way the
> comparative method could be used to reconstruct a proto-language that
> never existed.

Steve, you "suspect" all sorts of wild things that have nothing to do with
reality.  You might as well assert that you "suspect" that the comparative
method causes baldness. ;-)

[LT]

> <<Steve, have you ever *done* any comparative linguistics?  Have you ever
> grappled with linguistic data in an effort to demonstrate common ancestry,
> or to challenge someone else's efforts in this direction?>>

> This won't help you here.  I won't ask if you've ever argued a science
> case in Federal Court or ever did plasma analysis or worked on neural
> systems or did any high-order economic analysis.

Ah, so the answer is "no", then. ;-)

No, Steve; I haven't done any of these other exciting things.  And I've
also never played first base for the St. Louis Cardinals.  But what on
earth does any of this have to do with understanding how the comparative
method works?

I was trying to find out if you really knew what the comparative method is,
what it does, how it works, and what can be expected of it.  I'm afraid
your increasingly wild assertions about it have persuaded me that you
really do not know anything about the method.  You seem to have some
fantasyland version of the comparative method in your head, one which you
have invented for yourself and which bears no resemblance to the real thing.

Your fantasy method can find systematic correspondences where none exist,
and it can reconstruct ancestral languages that never existed.  The real
McCoy can't do any of these surprising things.

> You've claimed an extremely high level of certainty with regard to the
> reconstruction of proto-languages.

No; I haven't.  I've claimed that the method cannot reconstruct an
ancestral language which never existed.

> I'm looking at the scientific validity of that claim.

Which I have not made, though I'm happy to discuss the strengths and
limitations of the method, if the moderator and the other list-members are
willing.  As it happens, IE provides some magnificent examples of
troublesome points in reconstruction.

> That demands that the process should be rational and reproducible.

It is.  Or do you want to deny that, too?

> If you're saying I'm missing something, spell it out.

Well, I apologize for my bluntness, but I really do not think that you
understand what the comparative method is.  If you did, you would not make
these wild statements about it.

> But not with the conclusions or unexplained assumptions that you have been
> relying on so far.

Steve, I have not been relying on any unexplained assumptions.  Chapter 8
of my textbook explains in moderately great detail the assumptions upon
which the method rests.  Do you want to challenge any of these?

> And I assume you aren't claiming any kind of unique psychic powers
> in your use of the comparative method that are beyond ordinary
> comprehension.

Far from it, and I really do not know why you are bringing up "psychic
powers".  The point of the method is that it relies squarely on hard
linguistic evidence, and not on fantasies or wild guesses.  If the hard
evidence is not there, then the method returns nothing.  You keep denying
this, and I can only conclude that it is you who are appealing to "powers
beyond ordinary comprehension".

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk

Tel: (01273)-678693 (from UK); +44-1273-678693 (from abroad)
Fax: (01273)-671320 (from UK); +44-1273-671320 (from abroad)