Re: [tied] Why is PIE more centum than satem?

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> The fact that linguistic structure is immensely
> complex does not mean that it is unknowable.

*****GK: Exactly right.*****

It only

> means that an "overall similarity" metric taking
> into account "all aspects" of a language cannot be
> defined in a meaningful way.

*****GK: This is an immediate non sequitur. Science is
a never ending process. Just because certain "aspects"
cannot "meaningfully" be ascertained by a given system
of interpretation does not imply that the project is
out of reach. It merely emphasizes the limitation of
the tools of analysis in question.******

Imagine asking a

> biologist a question like, "Is a dolphin more
> similar to a fish or to a bat?". You wouldn't be
> surprised if the answer were "It depends", would
> you?

*****GK: No. Just as I wouldn't be surprised to
receive an answer of "it depends" to the question "Is
the IE component of Greek (or Hittite, or Celtic, or
Germanic, or Indo-Aryan)more important in evaluating
the overall status of the language family than the
non-IE component." After further discussion I would
probably opt for the IE component, just as I would for
the "watery" aspects of the dolphins' existence. Of
course these analogies shouldn't be overdrawn.******

"Similarity" is not very important in

> "historical biology". The general body plan of a
> dolphin is like that of a fish, but on other levels
> of description there is any number of "hidden"
> homologies between dolphins and bats, which
> biologists regard as more fundamental and more
> significant than the deceptive superficial
> similarity between dolphins and fishes.

*****GK: Here also one should look at the whole
picture, and not be swayed by the value judgement
contrasting the "fundamental" and "significant" to the
"deceptive" and "superficial". Any biologist who
ignores the fundamental fact that dolphins are marine
creatures would be something of an oddball.*****

No metric is

> needed here. It is enough if we are able to
> reconstruct the position of the three groups in
> their common family tree. Rather than classifying
> organisms according to any possible arbitrary
> schema, we prefer a historical taxonomy, according
> to which two species are "closer" if they share a
> more recent common ancestor. The least arbitrary
> classification is one that reflects phylogeny. The
> kind of "closeness" that is of primary interest in
> this kind of taxonomy is genetic.

*****GK: As I've already mentioned any number of
times, all this is fine and good, very useful. But it
in no way implies that nothing further can be
discovered or said about the subject matter. Such a
claim would, in the more extreme cases, be tantamount
to the similar contentions of religion and/or
ideology. "Within the parameters of our approach here
is what is true and significant.." But I'd like to
know more! "There is nothing more" "We can't tell you"
"It's unknowable, deceptive, superficial, idle." Well
in that case I know what questions I will not (or
should not) be asking in that venue. I will leave the
linguistic Newtons alone, and search for linguistic
Einsteins.******

(PG)many aspects of PIE are forever beyond our

> reach. Even if you had an entirely objective way of
> measuring the overall similarity of two "complete"
> language systems, PIE is not and will never be
> reconstructed completely.

*****GK: Even so, as in the case of ancient ruins, you
can certainly tell whether subsequently erected
structures in the neighborhood are "closer" or
"further removed" in style, appearance, etc.
etc.******

>
> To sum up, it makes perfect sense to ask if Vedic
> Indo-Aryan is more closely related to Mycenaean
> Greek than to Hittite -- this question can in
> principle be answered by applying reliable methods.

*****GK: No problem here.*****

>

All three languages are equally close relatives of

> PIE, being its lineal descendants after the same
> length of time (give or take a practically
> insignificant difference).

*****GK: There is an important fallacy here, since
time is clearly not the only and perhaps not the major
factor determining difference. On this analogy,
currently existing snakes, humans, bees, are equally
close relatives as the "lineal descendants" of some
primeval slime microbe...******


The question which of

> them is most _similar_ to PIE can only be answered
> if you explain what you mean by "similarity" and how
> you propose to measure it in practice.

*****GK: That's fair enough.*****

I am afraid

> the answer will depend on your subjectively
> preferred metric.

*****GK: Everything always begins "subjectively", but
it does not have to end there and in science it never
does.*****

You may have heard of

> lexicostatistics, which uses the statistical study
> of vocabulary to "measure" linguistic proximity.
> Unfortunately, the "hard figures" it produces are of
> no real use in reconstructing linguistic history:
> vocabulary diffuses easily and at unpredictable
> rates, introducing errors that cannot be controlled.

*****GK: I think this is a very promising area
actually, since it deals to some extent with real
differences in real languages. The discovery (or claim
not yet verified to everyone's satisfaction) that some
60% of Ancient Greek's lexicon could be non-IE (with
similarly large percentages for Hittite, and somewhat
less for Germanic)I find extremely significant as
potenetially relevant historical data. This sort of
thing should be done for every IE language.*******


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com