Re: [tied] Re: About methodology...

>Regarding Piotr and Glen's debate on the value of "tree"
>versus "tangled bush". I came to recognise the value of the bush
>model in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. The Wiru Language, for
>instance had a 55% West-Central Highlands Family feature, and a 45%
>Medlpa Family Feature. Was it originally a West Central Highlands
>language in which Medlpa arrived as an superstrata or a substrata
>Medlpa with a West Central Highlands superstrata.

Based on your numerical figures (and I won't ask how they were arrived at),
it would seem that it is primarily West-Central Highlands. I have trouble
believing that any language is so mixed up that there are _equal_
connections between two groups. That scenario is very unlikely.

>I suspect there are a lot of languages in such a situation. I know
>it is certainly true of Latin America where comparitive linguists are
>having huge difficulties in sorting out whether a language is Macro
>Ge, Andean-Equatorial or Macro-Carib.

Yes, but then I don't think that this is as studied as the European
languages so no wonder they're having problems. I'm surprised anyone could
find enough resources on these tongues to study them :)

>I suspect Japanese is a classic example in another guise. I have seen
> >people who put Japanese as the first split of Proto-Austronesian.
> >Others consider it a type of strange Altaic (as does Glen). This kind
> >of thing is more common than one would consider, especially after a >long
>and complex history.

But I don't deny Austronesian or Siniatic influences on Japanese. The point
here is that much of the simple Japanese vocabulary is majoritarily Altaic
(de "at", kokoro "heart", kono "this", sono "that", ano "that over there",
nani "what?", yotsu "four", nanatsu "seven", etc). The grammar isn't exactly
"Altaic" but the postpositions and many other grammatical tidbits used are
Altaic.

>Such effects accumulate across the millennia, and the amount of
>static noise that would accumulate in any language as a result would
>be huge. It is really a question as to where this static becomes so
>large that any "underlying message" becomes lost. Piotr argues that
>the static comes very soon to the present, Glen is close to the
>Greenbergians in arguing it only comes very early. In either case,
>the "noise to signal" ratio, is something Glen, that can be best
>determined mathematically ;-)

Then by all means, crunch away, John. :)

- gLeN


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com