>method but, finally, it is the best analytical tool we have for
> Mr. Kelkar,
> in my opinion you have thrown out the child with the bathwater.
> Certainly, there are exceptions and anomalies in the comparative
>usually impossible to causally relate.
> Intra-language contacts are much more difficult to prove, and
>with which your ideas have been greeted but, if you are ever able to
> I understand your frustration based on the general lack of warmth
>Thanks Mr. Ryan. I will keep your advise in mind.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mkelkar2003<mailto:swatimkelkar@...>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:25 AM
> Subject: [tied] Limitations of the compartive method
> "Thomason wants us indeed to believe that the CM has been so
> that it "has been altered only in relatively minor ways since" thequestion its
> 1870s and "is envied by many other historical scientists" (2002, p.
> 102). To
> my knowledge, there are quite a few historical linguists, apparently
> (Thomason's term) and respected ones, who have questioned the "famous"
> CM. Almost all the contributions to Aikhenwald & Dixon (2001)
> reliability and "the regularity hypothesis of sound change" (Thomason,typological
> p. 102). They argue that synchronic structural similarities among
> on which the CM relies, may be due to common inheritance, mere
> coincidence, or diffusion. Likewise, Campbell (2002, pp. 146-147)includes
> an informative caveat about the CM. Overall, one mustindependently know
> the history of population movements and contacts among speakers of theechoed by
> relevant languages in order to sort things out. The position is
> Laks (2002). As Thomason (2001) herself acknowledges, contact hasplayed
> an important part in the histories of all languages. Some of thenot do
> chapters in
> Aikhenwald & Dixon (including those by Calvert Watkins, Randy Lapolla,
> James Matisoff, and Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva) clearly show that the
> Stammbaums suggested by the traditional application of the CM do
> justice to the complex ways in which languages are geneticallyhttp://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mufwene/RESPONSE%20TO%20THOMASON.pdf<http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mufwene/RESPONSE%20TO%20THOMASON.pdf>
> related. (This
> is precisely the position developed by Laks, 2002.)"
> Thefore, "one must independently know
> the history of population movements and contacts among speakers of the
> relevant languages" before comparative method can be applied. The
> comparative method cannot be used as evidence for population
> M. Kelkar