Variability of Replacement Rates (was: Negation)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> It can also be predicted that traditional lexicostatistic calculations,
> and especially glottochronological conclusions based on them, will
> consistently prove worthless, since the rate of lexical replacement in
> the "core" vocabulary is _extremely_ uneven (the expected lifetimes,
> even among the "Swadesh words", depend strongly on their frequency of
> occurrence and typically differ by at least two orders of magnitude).

Is it fair to call the use of a lexically flat replacement rate
traditional? The use of different rates for different meanings goes
back at least to the 1960's - I remember seeing a paper of Dyen's
(possibly 'A Lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian
languages' - I was not trained in recording my sources when I read it)
that used 5 different rates and admitted that this was a bit crude for
the most conservative fifth of the word list. I suggest you call the
constant rate method 'simplistic' rather than traditional.

Richard.