--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 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@...
> 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?
The problem with "Entia non sunt multiplicanda" is the "sine ratione".
My major at the university was computer science. Writing computer
programs you are confronted with that rule in a much more detailed
way than you would be, if you could avoid it. It begins to look more
like a rule of thumb, as you also imply. Assuming you're programming
in amn object-oriented language, how many "entia" are necessary.
Really neccessary? And what *are* those "entia" anyway?
In this case, suppose we apply Occam in the version you suggest.
A "Kilroy" exists in language B1, but not in languages B2 and B3,
therefore (by Occam) not in their ancestor language *A. Suddenly we
find a "Kilroy was here" somewhere in the landscape. Are we therefore
forced to assume that it was the Kilroy of language B1? Not
necessarily.
Torsten