Linguists

[wieson]

Strange, this is just the type of polemics I recently heard from a linguist
about Indologists!

By the way, one CAN prove - in as far as anything in the humanities is
"provable" - a linguistic theory in as far as one makes a hypothesis and
TESTS it. That is, many predictions, such as the laryngeal theory, were
made and thought through long before the data for Hittite were found, which
fit in very well with the theory. And one can base a hypothesis on data in
one area of grammar and find that it also fits in with data in another. The
theory of transitivity or the concept of grammatical relations are just two
areas where one can see different parts of the grammar acting in - dare I
say it - predictable ways. We linguists don't just sit around drinking
coffee and making up scientific fairy tales. And concensus is just as
important - but not more so - here as in other fields.

If this message was in response to a discussion (which I seem to have
missed) on an etymology, then I must add that Indo-European linguistics -
and historical linguistics in general - MOST CERTAINLY are provable, if
there's any substance behind them. This holds true for 'sound laws' as well
as for semantics and the entire process of grammaticalization, as we see
the same types of change over and over - this often tells us right at the
beginning of our research what "solutions" will undoubtedly lead us in the
wrong direction (thereby saving us a lot of "consensus-building").

May I ask what was the reason for this sudden attack on linguistics?

John Peterson


----------
> Von: Sn. Subrahmanya <sns at IX.NETCOM.COM>
> An: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> Betreff: Linguists
> Datum: Sonntag, 18. Januar 1998 05:12
>
> 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