Re[2]: [tied] long, flat, full

At 6:04:20 AM on Monday, October 6, 2008, Arnaud Fournet
wrote:

> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

>>>> So, seven changes in 50,000 years. That's approximately
>>>> one change each 7000 years. So Chinese hasn't changed
>>>> in 7000 years?

>>> I don't buy your periodizing method. There is no reason
>>> changes should occur at a metronomic pace.

>> Well tell me which one you use then. Whichever other
>> 'periodizing' method you use, the word will have been
>> unchanged at least once for more the 7000 years.

> So what, Icelandic has not changed so much in seven
> centuries.

Seven centuries is an order of magnitude less than 7000
years. And although it has changed less in that time than
most languages, Icelandic has still changed quite a bit,
especially in pronunciation and lexicon, but also in syntax.
It would have changed even more had there not been a
conscious effort to resist (and in some cases even reverse)
additions to the lexicon. (See, for instance,
<http://forums.skadi.net/archive/index.php/t-17896.html> and
<http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/lingua/structure/about/about_is.html>.)

> Why should everything change ?

Doesn't really matter: the evidence clearly shows that
languages *do* change over time.

> Do I have to prove that something can be stable ?

Yes, if you want to claim that a significant number of words
have remained stable for 7000 years at a stretch.

Brian