Re: [cybalist] Re: Glottochronology.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Croft <jdcroft@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 27 April, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: [cybalist] Re: Glottochronology.


>
> We need to be precise about our use of Chaos Theory.
> Chaos/Complexity
> Theory systems give the illusion of being chaotic, but they are
> underlain by certain regularities, based upon "complex atractors".
> Thus what appears to be chaotic is in fact quite ordered. Language
> systems are good examples of "atractors", and so they could possibly
> allow a Chaos/Complexity treatment.
>

This is more like what I had in mind, the image of the Lorenz Strange
Attractor developed for weather systems, where the system remains fairly
stable for a period, and then suddenly spins off on to a new trajectory and
a new stability. The idea being that the causes, onset and speed of the
change cannot be predicted, nor can the new stability.

>
> Glottochronological studies have been used to give dates for the
> split
> of PIE (4,500-3,500 BCE) for example. Given this example it would
> seem to be based on some evidence. Others have used it with
> profitability on Austronesian languages too. I know Guthrie and
> others
> have used Glottochronology in their comparative studies of Bantu
> Languages.
>
> Glottochronology was used by Karl Frankin quite profitably for the
> splitting of the Central Highlands Family of the Trans Papuan
> Superphylum in Papua New Guinea. I think on specific cases, when
> supplimented with other evidence it can be a useful technique. When
> used alone (like any of the methods we use) it needs to be taken with
> a grain of salt.
>

I agree that any tool is valid if it can provide a starting point or basis
for further detailed linguistic/historic investigation. But it must be borne
in mind that that is all glottochronology is, and its results should not be
regarded as in any way definitive or even indicative without corroborating
historical and linguistic evidence.

Cheers
Dennis