Content deleted Content added
Line 369:
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)
| |||