Re[4]: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

At 7:10:05 PM on Thursday, May 11, 2006, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott<mailto:BMScott@...>

>> At 3:37:27 PM on Thursday, May 11, 2006, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>>> From: Piotr Gasiorowski
>>> <mailto:gpiotr@...<mailto:gpiotr@...>

>>>> On 2006-05-10 18:00, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>>>>> That "some authority had decided that Nostratic" (also
>>>>> Proto-Language) "is too old" was exactly what was
>>>>> asserted on this list.

>>>> Can you name names?

>>> Yes. Brian.

>> Oh? Do please provide a message number.

>> I have said that if all known human languages share a
>> common ancestor, that ancestor is too ancient for
>> identifiable traces to have survived to the present
>> (e.g., Nrs. 43257 and 43279); I have said nothing of the
>> kind about Nostratic. Any version of Nostratic.

> Did you notice "(also Proto-Language)"?

Do you understand the word 'also'? It has here the force of
logical AND. Unfortunately for your claim, I have NOT
asserted that some authority has decided that Nostratic and
also Proto-Language are too old for identifiable traces to
survive, because I have made no such statement about
Nostratic.

I *have* asserted, and in my own name at that, that this is
the case for a hypothetical common ancestor of all known
human languages. I very much doubt that any competent
linguist would disagree. Indeed, I rather suspect that most
share my view that anyone who thinks otherwise is, er,
untutored, highly eccentric, or both.

>>> Nostratic has been proved.

>> Pull the other one; it has bells on.

> Well, if you are so certain, why not offer a little proof?

The existence of a substantial number of knowledgeable
skeptics is proof that N. hasn't 'been proved'.

And if you're talking about the actual linguistics itself,
the burden of proof lies with those who wish to maintain one
of the various Nostratic hypotheses, not with the skeptics.

>>>> I'm not going to prevent anyone from trying to
>>>> demonstrate the validity of long-range groupings. I can
>>>> only wish such adventurous spirits success. But somehow
>>>> the task proves to be enormously difficult -- much more
>>>> difficult, at any rate, than the reconstruction of the
>>>> ancestral language of a family with the probable time
>>>> depth of five or six millennia. Information (and with
>>>> it, evidence of relatedness) _is_ gradually lost over
>>>> time as a side-effect of language change. This fact
>>>> _must_ make reconstruction problematic sooner or later.

>>> Well, that is why Ballester's essay is so useful.

>> Piotr's already given a generous sample of reasons why it
>> isn't particularly useful, but he didn't mention my
>> favorite bit of silliness:

> Argue you own case, if you can.

I wasn't making a case; Piotr had already demolished
Ballester, making the points that I would have made and a
couple more besides. I was merely pointing out two
statements of Ballester's that in my opinion are (a)
hilarious and (b) sufficient by themselves to cast doubts on
his qualifications to write about language.

[...]

>>> This is the opposite of the now prevalent view that
>>> linguistic change is the norm; and that time-periods of
>>> relative stability are the exception rather than the
>>> rule.

>>> This latter position is logically indefensible. It
>>> asserts effect without cause.

>> No, it doesn't. It states an empirical observation, which
>> we may then try to explain.

> Well, then explain it.

The reasons are not relevant to the point that I was making.
Even if we knew absolutely nothing about the mechanisms of
language change, which is not in fact the case, you would
still be stuck with the empirical observation that
linguistic change is the norm.

Brian