9.964, Disc: State of Comparative Linguistics

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-9-964. Sun Jun 28 1998. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 9.964, Disc: State of Comparative Linguistics

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors:  	    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
		    Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
		    Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
                    Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sat, 20 Jun 1998 19:05:45 -0500
From:  "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Subject:  RE: 9.924, Disc: State of Comparative Linguistics

2)
Date:  Fri, 19 Jun 98 03:26:36 GMT
From:  starhawaii at microd.com
Subject:  Re: 9.889, Disc: Limits on Knowledge in Linguistics

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 20 Jun 1998 19:05:45 -0500
From:  "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-language at email.msn.com>
Subject:  RE: 9.924, Disc: State of Comparative Linguistics

Dear Lionel and LINGUISTs:


> 	I am not a member of any networks, preferring to spend my
> retirement years in work on Nilo-Saharan and Omotic to chit-chat, but
> I occasionally see something which has appeared on the network(s).

First, let me say that I have read, reviewed, and immensely enjoyed
Lionel M. Bender's "The Nilo-Saharan Languages - AQ Comparative
Essay", published by LINCOM (1996), and admire his methodology there
and his careful approach.  I would recommend its organization as a
model for anyone doing similar comparative work unqualifiedly.


> other such recordings are discovered. So, too, we can make
> speculations about the nature of prehistoric languages before the
> comparative method (a probability-based method!) allows us to
> reconstruct with even a low level of certainty. But these will be
> general and vague: not specific morphemes.

Here, I believe, is the key premise with which I must respectfully
disagree.  Bender writes "before the comparative method". I have
attempted and am continuing attempts to recreate the Proto-Language
(equivalent to his "Proto-Human") by utilizing a combination of the
*comparative method*, and general typology in syntax and phonology.

I will give an example to illustrate my meaning.

On the basis of the few languages which seem to retain CV's or
relatively transparent CV+ combinations, I have isolated through
comparative analysis two CV roots for 'leg' and 'digit': p?fo and
p?fe.

Utilizing general phonological typology, I operated on the hypothesis
that the Proto-Language would have five major articulatory points of
contact: labial, apical, dorsal, laryngal, and pharyngal; that each of
these would be characterized by stops, spirants, affricates, and
nasals (but no laryngal or pharyngal affricates or nasals) + a trill;
and further, that most resulting phonemes would be realized as
aspirated or non-aspirated (glottalized).

Of course, theoretical constructs remain only matters of curiosity
unless they can be related to phenomena in real languages but, and of
course I cannot be entirely objective, this phonological system
relates well to those language families which seem to have retained
most of the original phonological repertoire.

What I find in the majority of language families is a gross
simplification of the earliest phonological system.

So, for example, I would speculate (since I have not done a full study
yet), that Bender's "Excellent Isogloss" #5, which he cites as *+bi,
*+bo, *+bI, and glosses as (among other meanings), "foot=leg[2]", is
possibly related to my PL p?fe and/or p?fo.

One other example, briefly, might be his #3, **bEr-, "hoe[4], dig[5]",
which I would relate to Egyptian b3, which depicts a 'hoe', and means
'hack up, hoe'; and to IE *3. bher-, 'mit einem scharfen Werkzeug
bearbeiten, ritzen, schneiden, spalten'.

These are not isolated examples!

Of course, if one denies a priori that possibility of the
reconstruction of the Proto-Language, or accepts the faulty premises
of Ringe, one would have to reject these examples and the many others
that excellent reconstruction like Bender's has revealed in the
Nilo-Saharan family.

>
> 	Unless some alien species contacts us with recordings they
> made in ancient contacts, it is hard to see how we can compensate for
> millenia of probabilistic change in a system whose basis includes a
> high degree of arbitrariness.

Yes, it is hard to see but there is little arbitrary in language
evolution and development; it only seems so because we do not have the
requisite information to show how it was rather mechanically
determined.

PATRICK C. RYAN <PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com>
(501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947
9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA
WEBPAGES: <"http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803">
and PROTO-RELIGION:
*<"http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html">*


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 19 Jun 98 03:26:36 GMT
From:  starhawaii at microd.com
Subject:  Re: 9.889, Disc: Limits on Knowledge in Linguistics

The discussion over probability is very interesting to me.  One of my
professors, Dr. Roy Weatherford, wrote a book on it back in 1982
(Philosophical Foundations of Probability Theory, Routledge & Kegan
Paul).  The four he picked to examine (out of many more) were:

1. The Classical Theory of Probability: defines probability in terms
of ratios of equipossible alternatives.

2. The A Priori Theory: defines probability as a measure of the
logical support for a proposition on given evidence.

3. The Relative Frequency Theory: defines probability as the (limit of
the) relative frequency of appearance of one infinite class in
another.

4. The Subjectivistic Theory: defines probability as the degree of
belief of a given person in a given proposition at a specific time.


I would be curious to know people's interpretations of where Ringe's
theories fit in.

Kevin Johnson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-964