[Lingtyp] Greenbergian word order universals: confirmed after all

[Matías Guzmán Naranjo]

>
> So you are saying that you *dis*agree that we would use phylogenetic
> testing if we had complete and robust knowledge of the phylogenies of the
> world’s languages?
>

Assuming we only have knowledge of the phylogenies, but not actual
knowledge of feature values of the past: I disagree that these types of
phylogenetic methods are the best alternative available.

I definitely agree here!
>

Great to hear!

Best,

El lun, 6 nov 2023 a las 10:43, Juergen Bohnemeyer (<jb77 at buffalo.edu>)
escribió:

> Dear Matías – Thanks for the response! Just checking:
>
>
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Matías Guzmán Naranjo <mguzmann89 at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, November 6, 2023 at 10:15
> *To: *Gerhard Jäger <gerhard.jaeger at uni-tuebingen.de>
> *Cc: *LINGTYP <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Greenbergian word order universals: confirmed
> after all
>
> Dear Jürgen,
>
>
>
> I know I'm not impartial in this discussion, but:
>
>
>
> So this would be my first question to the detractors of
> phylogenetic/dynamic (Maslova’s term)/co-evolutionary tests for typological
> generalizations: do you disagree that if we had that perfect knowledge, we
> would as a matter of course take into account the phylogenetic perspective?
>
>
>
> I do, for several reasons, but mostly I think there are more
> interesting/useful methods that are neither phylogenetic inference or
> stratified sampling.
>
>
>
> So you are saying that you *dis*agree that we would use phylogenetic
> testing if we had complete and robust knowledge of the phylogenies of the
> world’s languages?
>
>
>
> I knew I shouldn’t have used negation in that question 😉
>
>
>
> Also, I didn’t mean to suggest that we use **exclusively** phylogenetic
> testing, just that it would be difficult to claim to have tested a
> generalization without having performed a phylogenetic test.
>
>
>
> I mostly agree with Gerhard on one point he makes, though, which is that
> just one result is not enough.
>
> We need to see similar results emerge from different methods.
>
> Focusing on the results from one or two techniques seems a bit misguided
> to me.
>
>
>
> I definitely agree here! – Best – Juergen
>


-- 
Dr. Matías Guzmán Naranjo
Sprachwissenschaftliches Seminar
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
https://mguzmann89.gitlab.io/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20231106/c89d4114/attachment.htm>