bones and flesh

[Paul Kekai Manansala]

George Thompson wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/8/99 10:39:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, kekai at JPS.NET
> writes:
>
> >
>
> >  Besides, Hubey makes sense to me mathematically while the
> >  pseudo-linguistics of reconstruction does not.
>
> I have watched Mark Hubey demonstrate on a number of scholarly lists that he
> does not know the languages that he discusses so vehemently, nor does he know
> linguistics.  How can you distrust the reconstructions of a Saussure, who at
> least knew the languages he worked with, while trusting in Hubey's
> mathematics?  I can sympathize with your distrust of speculative
> reconstructions, but who is being more *speculative* here, Saussure or Hubey?
>

It is not required to 'know languages' in order to analyze the
mathematical
methods used in linguistics. Mathematicians apply their field to all
types of
other fields in which they have limited knowledge.  What they need to
know are the
various variables, etc. that they have to work with.

If the linguist feeds a mathematician things as constants or things
similar to
constants which are really assumptions then you get linguists using bad
methods.

I should note that many linguists today do not use reconstruction or use
it sparingly
including Greenberg, Ruhlen and many of the Nostraticists.

However, if you have problems with some of Hubey's arguments, many of
them use the same
logic as those posed by Ringe (in his attacks on Greenberg). Maybe you
could identify what
specific problems you have with his assertions?

Also, give me a "proof" on any sound change law. I note that observation
is *not* accepted as
a valid proof on this list and probably rightfully so.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala

--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/