Content deleted Content added
→Origin: new section |
|||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WP languages|class=C|importance=Mid}}▼
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
Line 7 ⟶ 6:
|action1oldid=62229476
|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
}}
==Name and place for article==
Line 59 ⟶ 61:
For anybody who can help, the citations still needed concern:
*<
*<
*<
*<
*<
*<
[[User:Sjcollier|sjcollier]] 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 176 ⟶ 178:
11. Qualitative and quantitative are defined in any dictionary, and dont really require further explanation. [[Italo-Celtic]] can be looked up in Wiki if interested. Lexicostatistics uses cognacy judgements (when used properly) and does provide additional information and so complements the method. [[User:Adresia|Adresia]] ([[User talk:Adresia|talk]]) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The word ''palabra'' is an instance of metathesis, but it's not the only similar one: ''peligro'' is metathesized from ''periculum'' "peril". A similar-sounding word ''culebra'' "snake" is not metathesized; the Latin form is ''coluber''. I propose the rule: r + stressed vowel + voiced stop + l -> l + stressed vowel + voiced stop + r. Can anyone provide other examples or counterexamples?
:Thought of a couple. ''milagro'' is metathesized from ''miraculum''; ''roble'' (from ''[[Quercus robur|robur]]'') was not metathesized, so there has to be a vowel before the ''r'' for it to metathesize. -[[User:PierreAbbat|phma]] 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 308 ⟶ 310:
Yes, it would have been better with the proto forms, and you are right about the pronouns as well. The problem is that this table is done with an image file, not editable wikipedia markup. It still has value since it does illustrate the beliefs of the long range comparativists like Poppe who are mentioned in the subcaption. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Finnish and Estonian 3rd person pronouns (sg+pl) in the table aren't cognates. The Finnish counterparts to them are "tämä" ('this', dialectically also 'he') and "nämät" (dialectical, 'these').
[[User:Kernaazti|Kernaazti]] ([[User talk:Kernaazti|talk]]) 10:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
::Just remove the table altogether. There is no reason why the article should include this much controversial data. We cant selectively remove the ones we dont like either without committing OR.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 10:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
:::If nobody opposes, I'll remove it. [[User:Kernaazti|Kernaazti]] ([[User talk:Kernaazti|talk]]) 08:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
==Origin and development of the method==
Line 353 ⟶ 361:
:We could also use a link to the works of the Dutch Scythianists. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
== "Origin" vs "Application" ==
The transition from "Origin" to "Application" in the text is too abrupt. How did the linguists of old really apply the method, by and large? And how has its application changed? The history part gives some clues, but very little.[[User:Xemoi|Xemoi]] ([[User talk:Xemoi|talk]]) 05:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
:The "Application" section fails to identify clearly what example or recommendation comes from which of the two refs supposedly offered as source. In fact, it seems like original [[Wikipedia:SYNTH|synthesis]], IMO.[[User:Xemoi|Xemoi]] ([[User talk:Xemoi|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="auto signed">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 05:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The "linguists of old" didn't apply any set "method" but came to discover methods by bits and pieces. Modern textbooks like Campbell 2004 and Crowley 1982, written for introductory courses to historical linguistics, attempt a synthesis of what linguists "of old" and of new came up with and don't add to the story any new insights. And as their use and non-use in the classroom goes, there is no unified theory of historical linguistics and actual syllabi for introductory courses to historical linguistics will vary widely from professor to professor and will be tailored to fit their individual concerns and progress in research. I'm afraid that core-renditions here of what happened and of what is actually happening in historical linguistics is the best we can do so far. This has been done here, it seems to me, without falling into the pitfalls of "[[Wikipedia:SYNTH|original synthesis]]" as defined in the Wiki guidelines. Best, [[User:Eklir|Eklir]] ([[User talk:Eklir|talk]]) 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
:::Ok, I see, thanks for replying (sorry for the mess-up with threads, by the way - I hadn't used wiki for some time and had trouble editing; &thanks for merging them). However, I still think there should be some kind of transitional section to show how the method evolved after the 19th century, even if no consensus emerged since then. I'm aware there is no unified theory and that practices vary widely, but it is not like historical linguists stopped brushing up on the method and discussing it after that time, correct?
:::It would be interesting to show, for example, who first suggested what sort of recommendation (in the cases where they can be identified). The textbooks you mention surely must contain the accumulation of the work and suggestions of many different researchers over time, and it would be a nice addition to tell that story, presuming the information is available somewhere. Hope that is clearer[[User:Xemoi|Xemoi]] ([[User talk:Xemoi|talk]]) 01:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
== Lexical comparisons are less important than bound morphology ==
As pointed out by [http://www.billposer.org/Papers/iephm.pdf Bill Poser], the idea that the comparative method is mainly about comparing lexemes – regardless of how well they may conform to the claimed criteria of basic vocabulary – is a grave misunderstanding that seems impossible to root out, but it leads to all sorts of poor-quality research because it is usually overlooked that ''anything'' can be borrowed and even so-called basic vocabulary is prone to innovation, even if it isn't borrowed. The gold standard of the comparative method still remains the comparison of bound morphology and irregular paradigms in particular (not just general morphological type, of course; ''specific'' structural ''as well as'' material resemblances are needed), and truly rarely borrowed (usually functional) lexemes such as pronouns.
Basically, if you don't control for confounding factors such as borrowing and accident, you're doing it wrong. As Schrijver pointed out, the Latin borrowings in British Celtic are deeply embedded and present even in ''very'' basic vocabulary (both in British Celtic and in Old Irish I've often seen that what was long treated as ancient Indo-European heritage was eventually re-assessed as Latin borrowings, and likely archaic Germanic loans in Slavic and Baltic are often treated as cognates as well), and worse, ''there were even regular sound correspondences'', giving them the appearance of true cognates. I suspect the same problem with other large-scale layers of borrowings such as Latin loans in Albanian, or Chinese loans in East Asian languages, which have misled scholars for ''decades'' and keep misleading Chinese scholars, who still treat Tai-Kadai languages as Sino-Tibetan. (Sure, Japanese has several layers of Chinese borrowings, but how do we know that the oldest layer of borrowings doesn't consist of ''real'' cognates? Ultimately only because Japanese ''morphology'' is so radically different.) What made Hübschmann recognise that Armenian wasn't Iranian had nothing to do with a lack of regular sound correspondences in the Iranian borrowings. The problem is compounded when the source of the borrowings is closely related. Another problem for long-range comparisons, especially in Eurasia, is the problem of ''Wanderwörter'', which we know can travel truly surprising distances – there are widely accepted examples for that; for example, Persian ''nān'' "bread" (< Proto-Iranian ''*nagna-'') has reached Tundra Nenets, Komi and Mansi.
So regular sound correspondence must be thrown out as an unfailing criterion too (of course, accepting that sound change is in principle regular, only disturbed by other factors such as analogy, still remains a vital precondition to ''any'' comparison, it just can't rule out borrowings entirely). Lexicon is just not reliable. As aptly pointed out in the article [[Trans–New Guinea languages]] (passage partly written by yours truly): ''The strongest lexical evidence for any language family is shared morphological paradigms, especially highly irregular or suppletive paradigms with bound morphology, because these are extremely resistant to borrowing. For example, if the only recorded German words were ''gut'' "good" and ''besser'' "better", that alone would be enough to demonstrate that in all probability German was related to English.'' --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 22:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
See also [http://www.billposer.org/Papers/oerc.pdf "On the End of the Ritwan Controversy"], where Poser makes the same point again: lexical evidence is never sufficient to ''prove'' genetic relatedness; even isolated morphological comparisons are not enough. As he says on p. 7: "The distinction that Goddard made is the distinction widely made by historical linguists between lexical equations that happen to involve grammatical morphemes and true 'embedded' morphological correspondence." What must be compared is systems, not isolated forms. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 23:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
[http://www.billposer.org/Papers/hokan.pdf Here on p. 8], Poser explains the true main reason for the significance of the establishment of systematic and regular sound correspondences: to rule out ''chance similarities'' – ''not'' to rule out borrowings! Moreover, the establishment of regular sound correspondences is the prerequisite for the reconstruction of proto-stages. It is, however, not in itself a magical fix against the borrowing problem; very often it does help to rule out borrowing, but not ''always'' and unfailingly. Clearly, this is not understood by many linguists. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 23:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
::Well, as some have observed this would mean that it is impossible to demonstrate relatedness between isolating languages - compounded if they have short CV roots. The fact is that there are differing standards of what is accepted as conclusive evidence of relationships between individual lingusts and between schools of linguists. [[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 00:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Easy enough: Only accept the ''strictest'' standards – as set by the Indo-Europeanist tradition – as ''conclusive'' (rather than ''tentative'') evidence. As newer developments in Sino-Tibetan, Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Oto-Manguean and Niger-Congo show, even isolating languages are not completely devoid of morphology, and the problems can be overcome using a strict methodology. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 23:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Comparative method (linguistics)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=752019986 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726012439/http://www.eastling.org/paper/Driem.pdf to http://www.eastling.org/paper/Driem.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 01:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
== Translation ==
The German - to - English Translation is very bad. The fact that it is still somewhat understandable is surely an indication of PIE roots for practically all the words :D?
I am a native German and (UK) English speaker, so should someone be kind enough to forward me the original text, I shall do my best to translate it with a minimum of idiom, but an emphasis on the sense of the words, rather than a literal transcription, which seems to have been the case here. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.71.14.214|82.71.14.214]] ([[User talk:82.71.14.214#top|talk]]) 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
For instance, I might infer the following: -
"In this work I have attempted to set forth the inferred original Indo-European language side by side with its extant derived languages. The advantages of this [approach] include making clear to students the results of the investigation in a consolidated form, thereby elucidating the nature of particular [particular individual?] Indo-European languages.
There is, I think, more to be gained by this, namely to demonstrate the baselessness of the assumption that the non-Indian Indo-European languages were derived from Old-Indian (Sanskrit)." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:82.71.14.214|82.71.14.214]] ([[User talk:82.71.14.214#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.71.14.214|contribs]]) 17:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)</span>
== Slavic for nine ==
"The word, by regular sound changes from Proto-Slavic, should have been /nʲevʲatʲ/, but it is in fact /dʲevʲatʲ/." This is wrong; the /n/ had already changed to /d/ in Proto-Slavic and Proto-East Baltic, but remained /n/ in West Baltic. See [[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/devętь|*devętь]]. [[User:PierreAbbat|phma]] ([[User talk:PierreAbbat|talk]]) 08:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
== 'Comparative method' should not redirect to 'comparative method (linguistics)' ==
Comparative method is something used across the social sciences, it's extremely odd that it is the title to exclusively comparative method in linguistic. It's misleading! This should be changed 100%. I have no clue why this is the case. [[User:LevatorScapulaeSyndrome|LevatorScapulaeSyndrome]] ([[User talk:LevatorScapulaeSyndrome|talk]]) 16:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
| |||