The Single Parent Question

[Larry Trask]

--On Thursday, July 5, 2001 4:55 pm -0500 proto-language
<proto-language at email.msn.com> wrote:

[Steve Long]

>>> 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.  You've claimed an
>>> extremely high level of certainty with regard to the reconstruction of
>>> proto-languages. I'm looking at the scientific validity of that claim.

> [Joat Simeon]

>> -- no, you aren't, because you don't have the knowledge-base to do so.

> [PCR]

> I do not subscribe to much of what Steve writes either but I do believe
> he is asking pertinent question.

> This type of snobbish response is not at all helpful. Steve is not
> suggesting for one moment that he has the training in IE linguistics of
> many on this list. He is questioning the methodology used based on his
> familiarity with it in other disciplines.

First, the methodology of comparative linguistics is not used in any other
discipline, and certainly not in physics, computing or economics.
Therefore Steve cannot possibly have any "familiarity" with it in other
disciplines.

Second, Joat is quite right in his response.  This is not snobbishness:
it's just the plain truth.  Steve has no right to question our methodology,
because he has no experience of it, and apparently no understanding of it.
The sole basis for Steve's objections appears to be that he doesn't like
our conclusions.

Historical linguistics is a serious scholarly discipline, and the
comparative method is one of its most important tools.  Neither historical
linguistics nor the comparative method can be learned in three minutes, and
neither can be explained so completely in an e-mail posting that an
absolute beginner can at once understand it fully.

Learning to do historical linguistics takes years of study and practice,
and so, for that matter, does learning to use the comparative method.
Every historical linguist has paid his dues here: we have all put in the
hundreds and thousands of hours learning our craft, studying other people's
efforts, trying things out ourselves, making mistakes, finding out what
works and what doesn't, learning to distinguish good work from bad, and
generally acquiring professional competence.

As Alexander the Great's tutor might have said, there is no royal road to
historical linguistics.  If Steve Long, or anybody else, doesn't like our
conclusions, then he is free to challenge them, but only if he's first paid
his dues.  He can't just sit there in complete ignorance of our field, make
blatantly false and ridiculous statements, and then complain because nobody
takes him seriously.

If he suspects we're wrong about something, then the onus is on him to
demonstrate our error.  But he can only do this if he first learns enough
about our field to speak with authority.

There exist any number of textbooks and popular books which attempt to
outline the practice of historical linguistics generally and of the
comparative method in particular.  All of these presentations are
necessarily somewhat simplified, and a reader who has mastered their
content still cannot call himself a historical linguist.

> Linguistics should be done with the same, generally recognized scientific
> methodology as other sciences --- whenever that is possible.

It is.

Look.  Would Steve Long, or anyone else, consider it perfectly in order to
contradict the most basic conclusions of specialists in, say, particle
physics, or the history of western music, or the archaeology of the Near
East, on the basis of zero knowledge and experience of the field, just
because he didn't like those conclusions?  And why should linguistics be
any different?

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)