> > The basic premise and more importantly _methods_ of linguistics
> > assume that there has been an historical evolution from a common core.
> >
> > This permeates every single part of linguistics, but to give a simple example
> > it's assumed that the Romance languages evolved from Latin, which in turn
> > evolved from an earlier group, itself derived from Indo-European etc.
>
> Well, I can hear the "linguistic is a respectable science, honest" mob
> reaching for their revolvers up and down the land. These aren't
> _assumptions_, these are hypotheses that can be verified to some
> reasonably high degree.
Technically, they constitute a _model_.
No model, no science. QED
> > The notion of Multiple Origins is pretty much an anti-linguistic one.
>
> Evidence, please.
Please consult the entire corpus of Western Philosophy, from Plato onwards. Technically, the ur-language theory is the paradigm of Speech.
> Everything I've read on the subject suggests that this is
> waaaaaay beyond anything that's considered testable in linguistics
> research,
Correct !
As much as anything, this is both philosophy and linguistics, or the philosophy of language if you prefer.
> nor am I aware of
> any methodological reason for having it in linguistics.
No model : no science. It's a set of working hypotheses (not always 100% compatible) functioning as the bases of the historic and genetic analyses, much as the Big Bang explains the universe, and the single-cell organism the current diversity of life on Earth.
> Please distinguish this from some linguist saying something to the
> effect of "I reckon there's probably a single origin of language, but
> it's completely unprovable", which is common enough, but almost the
> exact opposite of your assertion.
Exactly the same, had you not interpreted me otherwise ...
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail