From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Correlation Lengths of Language Changes
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:22:03 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


1. I'm already tired of people telling me I don't understand some
simple concepts when in fact they show no evidence that they have
understood or can understand anything I said or say.

I'm not really in the mood to continue this.  I have experience
arguing with Marxists and religious people and I know what it's
like.

I'll be skipping the usual pointless remarks and straw man
arguments.  I mailed out about 50 copies of the paper today
to those who asked for it.  More will follow. 

Since I want to finish the rest of the sections, I have to cut
my responses short.


In article <1775@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:


> O.K. - I *do* know what isomorphisms are.  I agree that this is how one *specifies*
> a mathematical model of reality.  But *not* how one establishes shuch a model -
> that requires supporting data.  Just any old isomorphism does not a theory make!

Simple tautology. Useless comment to those who understand what it
means and just as useless to those who don't.


> But where is the evidence of large scale borrowing of the sort you want?
> [Oh, here I will admit that Rich hasn't quite managed to follow you, but I
> can understand why - your ideas have no support in the actual data].

All over the world.  Try Ottoman, composed of Turkish(Altaic),
Arabic(Semitic), and Farsi (IE).  I bet you can't find a better
testbed for your pet theories--600 years of written records, tons
and tons of them.

You must be a linguist. Why don't you try it.


> So you say that French is the result of massive borrowing of Latin vocbulary
> into a non-Romance base language.  Where is the evidence?  How could such
> happen anyway?

I believe the original thread was about English.


> Gack again!  Look, at least *try* to understand the comparative method!

Wow. This must be the ultimate in abstraction for a linguist.

Let's see if you feel insulted if I tell you to try Calculus,
Differential Eqs,  Abstract Algebra, maybe something that will really
open your eyes; a combination that is so powerful; a set of nonlinear
partial differential equations (in space and time) with random initial
conditions, random coefficients and random forcing.  And see how
reality is modeled with math. And then maybe you can understand what
and isomorphism is.

I have  a better idea though.  A little probability theory (like the
fundamentals of statistical inference, correlation, regression) should
help you enough not to repeat your suggestions for people to read
the comparative method a zillion times.


> Oh, perhaps - but what Rich is trying to say is that change occurs at *all*
> of your levels at about the *same* rate (- Or that it may even occur *faster*
> at what you call the 'higher' levels).

Does it?  Or does he say so?


> Yes relational terms can be borrowed - especially when a culture undergoes a
> substantial change in its kinship system.  But the idea that stone age man
> didn't bother with a kinship system is just plain garbage!  It is sociality
> that largely defines humanity's differences from the apes - we
almost certain

Yes, I think I read a little about evolution and apes and biology.


> Get real!  The only people that would lack a general word for 'tree' would be
> those living where there *are* no trees! In fact so-called 'primitive' peoples

Maybe the reverse. What's the Eskimo word for snow?

But more generally, abstractions develop later--things like what you
learn in grade school--animate, inanimate--> plant, animal--->
invertebrates, etc...

> often have a *better* vocabulary for describing living things than 'modern'
> languages.

like what ?  You're losing your time-space scale?  Eskimos may have
50 words for snow, that's an important part of their environment;
some Pacific islanders might have named hundreds of fish, and may
have named all the trees--same reason.

But are you going to claim now that as we go into the dark past
5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, 150,000 years (got the picture?)
that we're going to find more sophisticated languages and richer
lexicons ?

> Rich Alderson (not to mention me) might even be able to understand them.
> [In case you missed it - I do not find your ideas much more comprehensible
> than Rich does - I still cannot fathom exactly what you are trying to propose].

It's not that difficult. All you have to do is read and try to
understand :-).. Does it sound familiar ?



> P.S.  It would help if you would stop treating Rich Alderson like an idiot.
> He most certainly is not - he is a competent, generally reliable, expert in
> historical linguistics.  He *knows* what he is talking about.
> 

Nature will take care of everything in due time. It took care of the
dinasaurs, didn't it?  It'll also take care of half-baked ideas
just like all the others like them in the past.
I've stopped posting comments.
-- 

	mark	

   hubey@amiga.montclair.edu         hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
   hubey@pilot.njin.net               ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey    
Newsgroups: sci.lang