[Corpora-List] any opinion or argument on Language, Vol. 81, no. 2 (June, 2005
yutamb at mail.cis.ru
Fri Jul 15 16:25:01 CEST 2005
Dear Corpora colleagues, I wonder if you did buy into the article published in Language, Vol. 81, no. 2 (June, 2005, about which Jim Marchand wrote. (see below). He did not buy into it. But why, if he stated that it was "well done and well documented". I could not understand Jim. If he liked it then he bought into it. Am I right? If he didn't, then it is not "well done and well documented". I wish I could hear more comments on this article. Looking forward to hearing from you to yutamb at hotmail.com I am interested in the phylogenetics of language, on cladistics, language classification and the use of a more rigorous `mathematical' approach to reconstruction and taxonomy in linguistscs. Remain your sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk Ped. University (KF), Russia
Subject : 19.111 phylogenetics of language
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:18:29 +0100
Subject: phylogenetics of language
We have had discussions off and on on cladistics and
the use of a more rigorous `mathematical' approach
to reconstruction and the phylogenetics of languages. The last issue of
_Language_, Vol. 81, no. 2 (June, 2005) has a
well-argued and documented article,
"Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for
reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages,"
by Lucy Nakhleh, Don Ringe, and Tandy Warnow, pp. 382-420.
I do not buy into it, since most of our concepts, such
as language, dialect, idiolect, reconstructed language,
etc. are ideal types rather than Aristotelian (yes/no)
concepts, but it is, as I said, well done and
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Corpora-archive