John:
>Drawing trees is a simplification. To do justice to comparitive and
>historical linguistics, I think, drawing "tangled bushes" would give
>an element of greater reality to our efforts.
I've already stated that trees are a simplification, yes. In order to
understand anything though, one needs to start first by simplifying things
and breaking them down into pieces. If you begin with a complex model from
the start (like is no doubt the methodology of Starostin) you will be very
confused indeed and end up with a hopeless answer, which is not to say that
a tangled bush model or wave model isn't a good model, just more complex and
more detrimental in the beginning.
>Linguistics can be two dimensionally plotted (on latititude and >longitude
>geographically), but needs a third temporal dimension. >Perhaps to
>represent the tangled bush Piotr, we all need to be >sculptors and start
>working in three dimensions ;-)
You've explained the added complexity of a "tangled bush model" perfectly,
John, and this is why a 2D tree model is best when starting out, just as
IEists had done beforehand. Notice, they started with a tree model and moved
onto a more complex model such as the wave model (for instance, dialectal
isogloss lines between IE dialects).
- 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