From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 26293
Date: 2003-10-09
----- Original Message -----
From: "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Glen, regarding...
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-
> language@...> wrote:
> ....
> > My own view is, as a hypothesis, to seek to explain phonological
> changes are a result of changing gene frequencies in the population
> speaking the language.
>
> and....
>
> > <PCR> In my opinion, "social change" can best be understood as
> reflecting changes in genetic composition. I have no doubt that when,
> in certain US states, a certain critical mass of Latinos is achieved,
> power will shift to this group, and changes in the English phonology
> there will ensue, although national communications media will slow
> and somewhat inhibit them.
>
> Your scenario may quite possibly be true- but do you actually believe
> that genetics would have anything to do with it?!
<PCR> Yes, I actually do believe that genetic factors are a good hypothetical cause of phonological change.
You will notice that in previous messages, I asked for ANY proposals of other causal factors; and those that were advanced, all had obvious connections to genetic factors.
I find it hard to
> come up with a more classic example to demonstrate a correlation
> without causation.
<PCR> Sorry, I just do not follow this.
Let us take a concrete example. If a certain segment of a population substitutes a fricative (/f/) for an aspirated stop (/pH/), we can make one of two basic assumptions: that segment finds it difficult (or impossible) to replicate /pH/; or that segment does not properly hear /pH/, and cannot distinguish it from /f/. Both scenarios imply physical causes. If the underlying cause is physical in nature, then it is the result of genetic differences.
Certainly there are differences between the two
> populations in terms of both genetics and pronunciation, but newborn
> infants from one population brought up by adoptive parents of the
> other population will speak like their adoptive parents, not their
> genetic parents. You might as well propose that phonological changes
> are caused by diet or religion, or what sports one follows.
<PCR> I acknowledge that, in general, those newborn infants from the imperfectly replicating population will speak like their adoptive parents. But why? Perhaps because they will be regularly and rigorously corrected, and even though great effort is necessary, eventually they will succeed. In the imperfectly replicating population, obviously, by definition, newborn infants will not be regularly corrected, and no great effort will be necessary.
But the major question, which you do not seem to address, is why an imperfect replication becomes the norm in a given segment of a population rather than just an "acceptable" variation.
Do you have any ideas on that?
> Ned Smith
Pat
PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)