Descent vs. Influence

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/13/2001 12:28:10 AM, dlwhite at texas.net writes:

<< Rumanian has some resemblances to Latin and some resemblances to
Albanian.  Yet the resemblances are of fundamentally different kind.  Its
resemblances to Latin have to do with the descent over time of the set of
arbitrary correspondences between sounds and meanings that any language must
have.  Its resemblances to Albanian on the other hand relate not to
sound-meaning correspondences but rather to things like the distinctions
made, ordering of elements, and so on. >>

So, is that what you consider the difference between descent and influence? -

sound-meaning correspondences = descent
distinctions made, ordering of elements and so on = influence

So where one finds systematic "sound-meaning correspondence", are those forms
indicative of "descent?"

I just want to be sure that is what you are saying.

<<To say that influence is really a kind of descent because the two are both
kinds of resemblance is like saying that apples are really oranges because the
two are both kinds of fruit.  No.  There is simply no point in obliterating the
meanings of our terms and concepts.  Where there is a difference of meaning we
are clearly justified in using different terms.>>

Well, so far, you haven't defined the difference EXCEPT as a conclusion.
Unless you consider the above a definition of descent.

Lets' ask the question again.  When "resemblances" show systematic
correspondence, how does one distinguish the difference again?

<<I am distressed to find such back-sliding, even by people who should know
better,...>>

It's all a matter of POV.  Consider the perspective that it might be
front-sliding.

Regards,
Steve Long