Piotr:
>You don't seem to appreciate the complexity of the analogy. Humans
> >reproduce sexually.
True, and in this way humans differ from languages where, at least on
average, languages do not "reproduce sexually" (ie. converge).
>The family-tree model (and your reasoning) applies to those fragments >of
>the genome that don't undergo recombination -- mtDNA and the Y >chromosome
>in the maternal and paternal lines of descent, respectively.
Yes, this is where my reasoning and analogy lie. It is a sufficient model to
explain comparative linguistics and, again, your strategy here seems to be
to infuse unnecessary confusion into the debate.
>Languages don't just split and diverge; they also interact, borrow >from
>one another, form convergence areas and undergo hybridisation.
>Was there ever a time when English was a homogeneous language? Do its
> >modern dialects derive from a single proto-dialect whose unfortunate
> >sisters have died out?
Irrelevant. It is required to first reconstruct "Proto-English" with the
understanding that it was never truely a homogeneous language. When done to
a sufficient degree, one might be able to venture out of this simple model
and ascertain greater accuracy in reconstruction by surmising the
characteristics of the ancient dialects that "ProtoEnglish" was comprised
of. This next level is already dawning with IndoEuropean studies
(Nordwestblock, for instance) where the same problems arise as with
ProtoEnglish.
More unnecessary confusion? What is your point?
Me (gLeN):
> Although temporal horizons, splits, divergences and convergences >are
>fascinating and very important concepts when dealing with
>reconstruction, they are by no means a good arguement to downplay
>long->range comparative linguistics. You use these terms only to confuse
>and >create unnecessary doubt in the field.
Piotr:
>Advocatus Diaboli: Your Honour, I object! Doubt is ALWAYS necessary.
Yes it IS necessary, I agree, as I just finished saying. However, I was
refering (as you can re-read above) to _unnecessary_ doubt, the kind of
doubt that is used only to discourage the initial quest for knowledge. You
are using the every-day challenges of any comparative linguist as obstacles
to sway from the fact that long-range linguistics is a valid branch of
CompLx and no different from IE et al.
>Did I say anything about 100% certainty in historical linguistics? >It's
>something you keep putting in my mouth. I'm all for educated
>guessing as a preliminary strategy. It's rather the scale on which you
> >guess that I object to.
The "scale" of my guesses are necessary in the absence of knowledge and will
lessen over time as the extrapolative algorithm is applied over and over.
These guesses are in no way different from the crossword analogy which
suffers too from "large-scale guessing". In the end, it can only help to
further CompLx, if anything at all, to spur a deeper examination of a
particular problem.
>... and even if you can't fill in the puzzle completely, you can >always
>cheat by filling in any words that seem to fit even if they
>don't match the cues ;)
But you would know if you cheated and it's highly unlikely that your results
would make enough sense to anyone else within the strict semantic confines
of a two-dimensional crossword construct ;) Comparative linguistics is a
POLYdimensional construct making it even more unlikely to pull off a
cloaking of wild whims of imaginations as sensible theory...
... which brings us to...
>I may be strongly critical of Illich-Svitych and Starostin, but you >talk
>about their "unskilled curiosity" as if they simply weren't in >your league
>(though their results can be utilised).
Quite frankly, if someone like Starostin, who is no doubt an average, nice
guy who eats and breathes like the rest of us and who would appear to have a
strong amount of information and resources at his fingertips, can come up
with wild reconstructions that in no way conform to regularity within reason
(and I've checked thoroughly), then... no, he is not in my league.
(... suddenly, back at Acme Labs, the arrow on the Bitch Scale swings
dangerously offscale into the red hot WARNING zone ...)
Japanese's numeral system is clearly binary in nature - this is knowledge
for first-year Altaicists I would have thought. This has already been
published in books that may very well be thirty or fourty years old (since
they reside at my impoverished university library) and I would think
therefore that they are easy to obtain.
Yet, still, Starostin will use /mi-/ "three" for one reconstruction and
/mu-/ "six" for another without an expected comment as to how BOTH can be
inheirited if they clearly derive from each other, nor do we find an
explanation of his phonological deviations. Is he aware of all this
information? Is this a big joke like John's lovely "Apocalypse" site? Is
this an elaborate and deliberate deception just to make him look scholarly?
Or is he simply incompetent?
Examine the following link:
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?flags=engnnnl&root=config&basename=\data\alt\altet&first=1&sort=proto&text_proto=&method_proto=beginning&text_meaning=three&method_meaning=beginning&text_turc=&method_turc=beginning&text_mong=&method_mong=beginning&text_tung=&method_tung=beginning&text_kor=&method_kor=beginning&text_jap=&method_jap=beginning&text_reference=&method_reference=beginning&text_any=&method_any=substring()
A reconstruction like his *N[u] for "three" based on Turkish /otuz/
"thirty", Japanese mittsu "three" and Mongolian /gurav/ is not done by
someone playing with a full deck of linguistic cards, I think we can all
agree. At least my reconstruction, as tentative as it is, is more
vraisemblable than this.
He casually relates Turkish /d-/ with Mongolian /z^-/ and Japanese /t-/ (...
here and there in ad hoc fashion, sometimes Japanese /y/ and sometimes
Turkish /t/ when he feels like it ...) all to support his fantastic
reconstructions that have no clearly designed phonology, and which are
vaguely related semantically, even ignoring already established
reconstructions and thoughts on loanwords. In his comments, it seems to me
as though he is commenting on other reconstructions and connections only in
order to deny all those that oppose his outlandish views. He reduces their
points to rubbish and poppycock without any thorough analysis.
BTW, the usual correspondances seen in texts that I'm in touch with, are
Turkish /ZERO, y-/, Mongolian /z^-/ and Japanese /t-/ (such as in *tuwon
"ten", variously reconstructed in other ways but using the same cognates) or
Turkish /d-/, Mongolian /d-/ and Japanese /y-/ as in *d�r-"four". Instead,
Starostin prefers a million and one different stops, liquids, nasals,
rhotics, etc all perhaps in order to cheat at his crossword puzzle. He still
loses in the end but, as I say before, at least some of it is salvageable
for the next evolution in theoretical design.
This is only my personal critique on his Altaic reconstructions. I'm sure
others more competent than I can offer up their own oppositions against his
equally suspicious Semitic reconstructions.
Piotr:
>Glen, have you ever seen a Nivkh dictionary? A grammar of Nivkh, >perhaps?
>Can you say "My name is Glen" in Nivkh? Do you know anything >about the
>history of the Nivkh people and their contacts with other >languages? Are
>you in a position to verify whatever little information >about Nivkh you
>can scrape from secondary sources like Starostin? Are >you trying to tell
>me it's all irrelevant? Be serious, at least >sometimes.
>
>Oops, I forgot. This request is illogical and meaningless: >seriousness,
>after all, is gradient, relative and subjective.
Now, now. No need to speak through your burning effigy of me. I can make my
own quotes, thanx. :)
What I do know with 100% certainty concerning Nivkh is fragmentary, yes. But
the fragments are sufficient to piece together a bit of the larger picture.
I do know the following vocabulary terms, aside from the numerals, which
I've dedicated to memory for future reference:
my *n'i-/*n'e-
your *ci-/*ce-
mountain *-bal (*n'-val "my mountain",
*c-fal "your mountain")
harpoon *-r^ly
sky *-r^la
The language clearly has vowel harmony - this is coincidentally a feature of
Altaic languages. However, this fact in itself could be easily reduced to
simple areal influence if it weren't for the fact that the language employs
clearly Nostratic pronominal stems (see above) to express possessive
relationship. By the geographical position of this language, it could only
be a Nostratic _Steppe_ language or something closely related to that group.
What's more, /ci-/ "your" (Nostratic *tu) conforms to the same Altaic
softening of voiceless stops as we find in Altaic (Mongolian /c^i/, Turkish
/sen/). This is further evidenced with /tho-/ "five" where it clearly, along
with the other numerals, relates best with the Altaic and Korean languages
where *k- has been softened and lost (Korean ta-sot, Classical Mongolian
ta-bun, Classical Japanese itu-). However, if it is Altaic in appearance, it
certainly cannot be part of the Altaic family itself if "four" contains
initial /n-/ (/n@-/) just as is found in Korean /net/. Altaic distinctively
changes certain instances of *n- to *d- (Turkish do"rt, Mong. do"ro"v).
Therefore, based on these grammatical, phonological and even geographical
grounds, the likeliest relationship I can see is within an AltaicGilyak
family comprised of Altaic, Gilyak and Korean. I see no need to complicate
things and view these connections as simply borrowings or coincidence yet.
I await further information to adapt my hypothesis. Do you have some extra
info that could help me?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com