🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0Csxq.A63@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

> Boy, you guys are really talking past each other.  However, I have the perhaps
> absurd notion that I might be able to address some of the confusion.

You're welcome.


> 
> Only... no, that's not the paradigm; and no, people who are discussing
> relatedness are not describing that.

No it isn't. It's only a small part of it. And it's more abstract
and morgeneral.

> If you really have read Kuhn, you know t hat workers in a paradigmatic science
> have mastered a set of paradigms, and *assume* them in their discussions.
> To know what they're talking about, to say nothing of criticizing them, 
> you have to go master them yourself.

I've read Kuhn eons ago not that there's much in it that can be forgotten.


> In the present case, that means learning how historical linguistics
> really is done.  You are not going to get this through the net, any more
> than you could pick up quantum mechanics from reading sci.physics.  
> You get it by reading historical linguistics textbooks.  I would highly
> recommend Theodora Bynon's _Historical Linguistics_; Hock's book covers
> about the same ground somewhat more thoroughly.

In fact, I have my own copy of Bynon's book.  More general ideas
can give rise to others as instantiations or specific manifestations.
That's the relationship between what I posted and Bynon's .

Sometimes people think making up a word explains something. If the
word is used constantly, then the word becomes the explanation and the
real underlying phenomena is buried. Such is the use of words like
'instinct'. Sometimes it's better not use words whose meaning may
one imply ctain things but in reality don't.


> Historical linguists do *not* ascribe relatedness to languages based
> on either a fuzzy or a precise notion that their words kind of sound alike.

The word fuzzy was not meant as an insult. It seems to have had great
success certain linguistic problems.


[most of the rest of the posting deleted since it's either not germane
or shows a misunderstanding of what I posted. That's OK, since words
are often not sufficient to explain certain things.]



> to replacement by a new paradigm which addresses the problems revealed by
> the crisis, can do that..  Since historical linguistics isn't in a period of 
> crisis, no historical linguist is going to lose sleep over your objections.

This was probably uncalled for but since I do what I do not to disturb
anyone's sleep (except perhaps my own :-)), I won't lose much sleep
over this.
-- 

	mark	

   hubey@amiga.montclair.edu         hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
   hubey@pilot.njin.net               ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey