Genetic Descent/Verb Morphology

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

Larry Trask wrote:
<< The lexicon of Laha is largely native, though partly borrowed from Malay.
But the grammar is almost 100% Malay, with only a few fragments of native
Laha grammar surviving.  So, my question for David White is this: is Laha a
variety of Malay, or not?  Since the grammar is almost entirely Malay, it
would seem that he must answer "Yes; it's Malay." >>

In a message dated 5/25/2001 8:15:42 PM, dlwhite at texas.net replied:
<< I would need to know what the "few bits of Laha grammar" are.  If they
involve finite verbal morphology, then what I have been saying is wrong....
If they involve nominal morphology, derivational or non-finite verbal
morphology, or (worse yet) mere categories, then what I have been saying is
not wrong.>>

(dlwhite at texas.net also writes:
<<So even the mixed language crowd now admits that a language which
has grammar from source A and (non-grammatical) lexicon from source B is a
form of language A?  That is pretty much what I have been saying. >>)

Just a quick note.  If we follow through on Dr White's formula above, we seem
to begin to have an "operational" definition of a "genetic relationship."

I presume that "finite verbal morphology" has been given trump card status
above because of the often repeated dictum that such morphology is the least
likely to be borrowed.  Or, as Dr. White seems to be suggesting, may never be
borrowed.

I'd just like to note what should be an interesting corollary to this
position.

If what Dr. White finds is true, then the absence of shared "finite verbal
morphology" in any two languages should put in doubt any "genetic
relationship" between those two languages - no matter what other shared
features might be present.

And of course by "shared" I don't mean by way of a reconstruction that
reconciles what are two different morphologies on their face.  Such
reconstructions are based on a genetic relationship already being
established.  Here, we are talking about a situation where the genetic
relationship is not yet established, and no reconstruction has been justified.

Also Dr. White seems to indicate that any "finite verbal morphology" from
native Laha grammar at all would overturn his hypothesis that these types of
mixed languages don't exist.

I'm wondering if such a mixed language does in fact exist - one that has
"finite verbal morphology" from both of two unrelated languages - whether
that would change his apparent point: that verb morphology is a way to
identify the real genetic lineage in these "mixed language" situations?

As to the observation that these mixed languages are somehow rare, I'd ask
how one would know that - if "(non-grammatical) lexicon,... nominal
morphology, derivational or non-finite verbal morphology, or (worse yet) mere
categories,..." (quoting Dr. White) are such unreliable indicators of genetic
relationship.  There seem to be a good many languages that have been related
to one another based on the items above, but not on shared finite verb
morphology.  Perhaps they are all just mixed languages?

Regard,
Steve Long