Mate, kindly explaining Patrick's views:
> If I get Patrick right, he's trying to say something
> like this: there are some languages in the world
> which have very unusual traits. But because we
> know for a fact that they exist, we cannot say that
> these feature cannot exists.
But this is all beside the point. In theory we have
no logical choice but to reconstruct the most *likely*
features of a language based on the existing facts.
Theory requires **probabilistic**, non-absolute Logic.
The most common misunderstandings that arise in the
average layperson trying to think "logically" stem
from their failure to understand the basic concept
of relative probability (most likely, less likely).
Most can only think in absolutes and easily go
astray if a problem isn't completely in black and
white for them.
They will assume that because an answer to a
question which concerns a discipline that is
inherently _theoretical_ (such as, say, 'history' or
'comparative linguistics') can never be known
*with ABSOLUTE certainty* that therefore we
will "never know at all". And so, they think falsely
that anything goes.
This is immediately irrational of course because
they cannot seem to distinguish between probability
and possibility. That which is _rare_ (aka "possible")
is often hideously mistaken as probable (aka
"_significantly_ possible").
A proper theory can only be based on what is *most*
probable. Everything else is irrelevant. So that
which is "rare" is still irrelevant if it is not
deemed most probable given the facts.
> But if we reconstruct some strange feature in a
> proto-language (and we reconstruct it because the
> evidence point to it), we tend to say - oh that
> can't be, there's no such language.
No, not at all, Mate. We would be legitimate in
saying this **if** the evidence shows that a simpler
solution is still possible. The simplest solution
that explains the known facts must be by default, the
favoured solution. As such, it may very well be
possible that the facts show that clicks are necessary
in the proto-language because this is the simplest
solution.
Again, the above quote is an example of the
misapplication of Logic based on a basic
misunderstanding of relative probability.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com