🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Jan.6.23.54.18.1993.24244@pilot.njin.net>, hubey@pilot (Hubey) writes:
>I don't have any doubts that languages change for a variety of reasons.
>Neither do I subscribe to the view that all changes emanate from only one
>cause in every case.
>
>However, if languages change as a result of some internal effort at some kind
>of an optimizing principle, then it should be an observable universal. It
>should be possible, then, to find this univeral principle since there are so
>many languages that lingusists have studied.

But they don't.  Exactly why they do change is an area of research.  Clearly,
the primary mechanism of change is the transmission problem:  Children learning
a language from their elders--not simply audlts but anyone more advanced in the
language than they--do not learn to reproduce perfectly the learning of others.

(A theoretical question to ponder:  Do neural nets given the same *large* sets
of stimuli in different orders organize themselves the same way?  Would another
neural net provided with its stimuli from several such nets organize itself in
the same way as any of its inputs?)

>On the other hand, if the changes are caused by external influence, then
>although exhibiting some kind of regularity in the pattern of the changes, it
>probably could be attributed more to the characteristics of the external
>influence than to the universality of the transition. Thus methods can be
>devised, in principle, to distinguish between the two kinds of changes.

And have been devised.

>>Besides, given current thinking on the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European,
>>somewhere at a midpoint between the Eastern Goths and the Western Armenians
>>would be best under your proposed model.  There are problems with that
>>location as well.
>
>I did not and do not defend any of the views put forward by any of the
>constructionists. I'm only attempting to point out inconsistencies in some of
>the current thoughts.

Then please do so.  So far I haven't seen a single inconsistency pointed out.

>My main concern, and one of my hobbies, is to derive methods of obtaining
>numbers for various schemes. This is a very important part of science since it
>enables researchers to create unambiguous models on the basis of which
>discourse can take place.

But don't you think it behooves you to learn a bit more what the particular
field entails before making grand denunciations of methodology with which you
are not familiar?

>Never have I denigrated the tremendous effort expended by linguists at various
>times to produce some regularity/pattern that is not plainly visible. This is
>the essence of science. However, none of this should be taken to mean that
>'Then End' as arrived and that linguistics has reached the point where nothing
>else can be added. It would be too arrogant of anyone to even hint at such a
>conclusion. The wheel is still spinning, not only for linguistics, but even
>for mathematics. There will probably be no end to this process and the
>linguists should be well aware of it.

Linguists *are* well aware of this.  However, we are also aware, as you seem
not to be, that some tools are wrong for some jobs.  Without a strong back-
ground in the history of the field, as you appear, what leads you to believe
that you know better than the practitioners *what it is that they practive*?
-- 
Rich Alderson   'I wish life was not so short,' he thought.  'Languages take
                such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
                                                        --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@leland.stanford.edu                              _The Lost Road_