🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.lang
Article #74

Re: Point Your Flamethrowers at Scientific American!

#74
From: Rich Alderson
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1992 00:25
41 lines
3059 bytes
In article <1992Nov2.122807.25099@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz (scharle) writes:
>In article <1992Oct31.215441.15379@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> [some stuff that I've deleted--rma]
>    ...
>    Here are a few opionions from a complete amateur.

That's OK.

>    One is that this article was extremely short on substance.  For example,
>they talk about certain prefixes and give a few examples.  However, it was not
>at all clear to me whether their examples of "my child", etc.  used prefixes
>which were functional in the language cited.  I couldn't tell whether the
>sound changes that they cited were systematic across the languages (for
>example, at one point they refer to the correspondence between "r" and "l" as
>being a common change -- how does this differ from our recent discussion of
>Hebrew being the parent of English?).  It was almost embarrassing to see a
>table in which not only Proto-Indo-European as well as English and Latin were
>used, and it was not at all clear to me what that table were supposed to be
>proving.  And what really drove me up the wall was their calculation of the
>"probabilities" of the correspondence occuring by accident!  It reminded me of
>creationist literature.

OW!  *I* wasn't *that* hard on them...

>    On the question of comparing the way that Indo-European was worked out as
>opposed to two-at-a-time comparisons, I guess that I'd think that standards
>have developed over time.  Perhaps the method that they use is _suggestive_ of
>something, but by now, the work of two-at-a-time should be starting, to see if
>the suggestions are pointing at something real.  I cannot see that there was
>anything new in the article (admittedly, I am an amateur, and may have missed
>something -- but isn't that supposed to be the audience of Scientific
>American?).

As I noted in my followup to Loren's article, this notion of binary comparisons
as the "Right Way" to do comparative work is not the methodology of any
historical linguist I know, or know of.
-- 
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_      
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.002524.17704@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!agate!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!alderson
References: <1992Oct31.215441.15379@s1.gov> <1992Nov2.122807.25099@news.nd.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!agate!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!alderson
From: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Subject: Re: Point Your Flamethrowers at Scientific American!
In-Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.002524.17704@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Originator: alderson@leland.Stanford.EDU
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
Reply-To: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Organization: Stanford University Academic Information Resources
References: <1992Oct31.215441.15379@s1.gov> <1992Nov2.122807.25099@news.nd.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 92 00:25:24 GMT
Lines: 41