Step Two

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

Larry Trask wrote:

<<Suppose,... 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...., 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. >>

I replied:

<<If you assume Basque and Spanish are entirely lost and unrecorded in your
example above, and all that is being compared are the "half-a-dozen
languages" you mention...  Are you saying there will be no systematic
correspondences to be found among those "half-a-dozen languages"?>>

In a message dated 7/13/01 11:46:41 PM, Larry Trask replied:

<<Yes; that's what I'm saying.  Or, to be more precise, there will be no
systematic correspondences pointing to a common ancestor. >>

So, just to be sure of what you are saying here:
In your hypothetical you say " Basque and Spanish were to interact ... and
give rise to half-a-dozen languages, each consisting of a different mixture
of Basque elements and Spanish elements..."

Let's say one of the "elements" you mention is Spanish finite verbal
morphology.  Let's say that this element is present in four of your
half-dozen languages.  Let's also say that this finite verbal morphology is
identical in all four languages. (Once again, neither Basque nor Spanish is
recorded by your hypothesis, so we are actually describing just four
languages with the same verbal morphology.)

I take it that you are saying that the presence of identical verbal
morphology in these four languages would not constitute "systematic
correspondence."

Or, in your newer phrasing, that the presence of identical verbal morphology
in these four languages would not constitute "systematic correspondence
pointing to a common ancestor."

Is this accurate as to what you are saying?

Regards,
Steve Long