Linguists

[Sn. Subrahmanya]

It seems to me that linguists get all their "solutions" in
a very democratic manner.  Consensus seems to be the
methodology to get to "solutions".  One person suggests
a possible way a word could have changed and then the others come up with
their own versions and then the most  acceptable version is considered the
"solution".
In mathematics - a initial 'assumption' is allowed, but again at
the end it has to be shown that no other 'assumption' would have
been valid.
"Linguistis" seems to have this fatal flaw in that-it
does not show that the initial assumption is the only valid possibility
and nothing else is possible. So, linguists
can add layers and layers of assumption and prove whatever they want.

IMHO, researchers tend to get bogged down in linguistic evidence, because
it is the most accessible thing (compared to other methods
like archeology) to do. All you need are the original sources, a few cups
of coffee and a fertile imagination.

The most potent combination, would be a 'social scientist' and a
'linguist' - put the two togethar in a room and one can expect the
solution all the problems in the world - and they will be absolutely
sure of it too.

It boggles my mind to see seemingly rational
people deriving a proto language existing thousands of years before and
hundreds of generations  ago spread out
over great land areas and through millions of people, based on
assumptions,and then adding more assumptions to it -
How in the world can one scientifically prove these assumptions ??
How can one be so confident of assumptions - without logically
proving that it is the only possibility ??.
Linguists have a ingenious solution - they just call these initial
assumptions as "rules" - then there is no necessity for any scientific
proof, only consensus from fellow researchers is necessary.

When one reads Seidenbergs papers, one cannot but be impressed by the
mathematical thoroughness with which he derives his conclusions.
Linguists on the other hand tend to 'pick' and 'choose' options as and
when it suits their pet theories.

Subrahmanya