Re: [tied] Occam's Razor

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 5982
Date: 2001-02-08

No. This means that if a word is attested *only* in one subgroup of a larger genetic group, then (if no external evidence exists) we cannot legitimately reconstruct it for that larger taxon. For example, if a word occurs *only* in English, Dutch and Frisian, the most parsimoniuos solution is not to reconstruct it for Proto-Germanic and regard it as an Ingveonic innovation. However, if there is, say, a Gothic cognate, or if evident IE cognates exist outside Germanic, then a Proto-Germanic reconstruction is legal even if North Germanic doesn't have the word (in such cases we assume that it has been lost in the group that lacks it). We are interested in optimal working hypotheses (this is what science is about), not in the ultimate truth of the universe. Of course it may so happen that our methodologically optimal assumption is wrong, but how can we know that if there is no evidence? I've no idea what kind of Occam's Razor you use, but I'm surprised at your surprised tone.
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen@...
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Oesysla/Eysysla etc.


Do we? That's not the Occam's razor I know. I suppose that means that if a word in a West Germanic language doesn't exist in Old Norse, then it's not in PGmc. either?