Re: Stacking up on standard works

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

>
> > This is why we can't accept languages such as Burushaski or Basque

as

> > part of the IE family, despite the claims of some crackpots. But the
> > comparative method isn't restricted to the reconstruction of
> > proto-languages but it also is useful to posit long-range

relationships.

>
> Establishing systematic correspondences leads to the reconstruction of
> protolanguage forms. A successful partial reconstruction based on a
> network of segmental and morphological correspondences in the lexicon

is

> actually what convinces the sceptics and what is generally regarded as
> the final test of validity for any serious comparative study. If you
> can't achieve that, it simply means that your evidence is too weak to

be

> taken seriously, and that you are trying to apply the comparative

method

> beyond its applicability range.
>

I disagree. IMHO the reconstruction of protolanguages is just an
application of the comparative method, but by no means the only one.

> > Unfortunately, morphology is of little help in long-range

comparisons,

> > apparently because of its higher evolution rate with regard to

lexicon.

>
> Bad luck, then. All methods have their limitations.
>

I strongly disagree. IMHO the comparative method can be used to discover
distant language relationships, in the scale of tens of thousand of
years.

> You said you
> regarded Vasco-Caucasian as a bona fide family. On what grounds? Show

us

> at least a good example of a regular correspondence between Basque

and,

> say, Avar, Ingush, or whatever you prefer, supported by some solid

evidence.

>

I never said Vasco-Caucasian was a family but a MACRO-FAMILY, that is, a
distant linguistic relationship.