Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tied] Linguists identify 15,000-year-old ‘ultraconserved words’ -- David Brown

Expand Messages
  • Richard Wordingham
    ... It s a lousy riposte. The counter-arguments are so holey that it almost reduces one to ad hominem arguments. She complains that using Eskimo instead of
    Message 1 of 4 , May 8, 2013
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
      > Sally Thomason has a nice skeptical piece on this in
      > Language Log:
      >
      > <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612#more-4612>

      It's a lousy riposte. The counter-arguments are so holey that it almost reduces one to ad hominem arguments.

      She complains that using Eskimo instead of Eskimo-Aleut makes the study unlikely to be useful. In fact, so doing should merely make the study less likely to come up with a positive result. (I say 'should' because adding weakly informative data has the curious effect of weakening the conclusions of statistical exercises in linguistic phylogeny.)

      The validity of her complaint about using Altaic remains to be determined. If, as is quite possible from what I've seen in discussions of core Altaic, the relevant words turn out to be Turkic, then there is no problem.

      The weakness is liable to be in the statistics. Having read the paper, it's not at all clear which or how the per-group reconstructions were chosen, or how inter-group cognates were identified.

      Richard.
    • Brian M. Scott
      ... I think that you miss the real point of those complaints, which I take to be that Pagel does not appear to know enough about the linguistics to be
      Message 2 of 4 , May 8, 2013
        At 8:28:00 PM on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Richard Wordingham wrote:

        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

        >> Sally Thomason has a nice skeptical piece on this in
        >> Language Log:

        >> <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612#more-4612>

        > It's a lousy riposte. The counter-arguments are so holey
        > that it almost reduces one to ad hominem arguments.

        > She complains that using Eskimo instead of Eskimo-Aleut
        > makes the study unlikely to be useful. In fact, so doing
        > should merely make the study less likely to come up with a
        > positive result. (I say 'should' because adding weakly
        > informative data has the curious effect of weakening the
        > conclusions of statistical exercises in linguistic
        > phylogeny.)

        > The validity of her complaint about using Altaic remains
        > to be determined. If, as is quite possible from what I've
        > seen in discussions of core Altaic, the relevant words
        > turn out to be Turkic, then there is no problem.

        I think that you miss the real point of those complaints,
        which I take to be that Pagel does not appear to know enough
        about the linguistics to be competent to carry out that
        exercise. And that's nowhere near being an ad hominem
        argument.

        Brian
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.