From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 58416
Date: 2008-05-09
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> =========
>> I disagree with the statement that German or English is a fact.
>> The problem is about defining what a language is.
>> Is Dutch and German two dialects of the same language ?
>> What about Schwyz ? is it German ?
>> and what about Black English or Jamaican English creole ?
>> Are these dialects of English or separate languages ?
>
> >There is always a kind of convention about what a language is.
>
> >Chinese dialects are extremely different,
> >but they are not considered separate languages by the Chinese
> >tradition, even though a Pekinese would never be able to understand
> >anything to Haikou.
> >It's about as clear as Armenian when you're an English speaker.
>
> >Arnaud
> ============
> We all know that.
M Kelkar does not seem to know
neither does M. Ryan.
Arnaud
===========
>
>A reconstruction is a reconstruction. It is not the real thing,
>because that has perished, leaving rubble. A reconstruction of the
>Colosseum or of some vanished civilization in India is the not the
>real building or civilization. But the closer a reconstruction gets to
>the real thing the better it is considered to be. Obviously there are
>the same methodological problems in reconstructing words as
>reconstructing buildings or civilizations, but in each case what you
>reconstruct is something which once existed, and no one is doubt of that.
> Torsten
=========
What I had in mind is that we could process the lexical data of IE languages
in a different way.
The standard comparative method works with a one-to-one segmental approach
sorts out words accordingly and then reconstructs a one-to-one convertible
formula.
This is one approach.
This approach is kindof newtonian.
I'm not saying it's bad. I just think it's not the only possibility.
One method could be to work with a one-to-one feature approach
for example a matricial formula like P_K where P is any labial stop and K
any velar stop,
be it voiced, voiceless or whatever.
That method would sort out more words than the comparative words does,
and in the case of some of your beloved substrates,
we might easily identify words with the same phonemic pattern as the
standard formulas.
This is another approach.
It's more quantic than newtonian.
I suppose the orthodoxists will look upon this method with the same
horrified gape as XIX century's physics would look upon quantics and
relativity.
Arnaud
==========