From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 58420
Date: 2008-05-09
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
> >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.
>If only that were true. For counter-examples, see Pokorny. It's been
>suggested that all roots not attested in three branches should be
>discarded as probably being wrong.
==============
As a matter of fact,
most PIE roots exist in neither Anatolian nor LAtin.
They are basically central PIE, not general PIE.
Arnaud
===========
>> 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.
>You've dropped your detection threshold - you'll always have a lot of
>false cognates. You'll have to cope with the fact* that, say, 80% of
>your correspondences are wrong.
>*The error rate will have to be an estimate rather than a fact - not
>something that unduly bothers statisticians.
>Richard.
========
Dear Richard,
You are circularly locked in with the concepts of correspondences, cognates,
reconstruction.
The issue is similar with chemistry and radioactivity.
Chemistry is about elements nicely mixing together and forming new
combinations.
this is the standard comparative method.
The problem is radioactivity :
Elements big-banging into becoming something else than before.
I think we have at least two cases of linguistic big-banging :
Arabic and Chinese.
I think you cannot deal with these languages with a nice and gentle linear
reconstruction.
As a matter of fact,
both Arabic and Chinese have been pushed aside because most people realize
they won't be able to handle them.
Chinese is not supposed to be part of Nostratic
and Arabic has been pushed aside as far-off relative.
These languages scare people.
No method exists to handle these languages.
At least none other than mine.
Arnaud
==============