rjohara.net |
Darwin-L Message Log 5:96 (January 1994)
Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences
This is one message from the Archives of Darwin-L (1993–1997), a professional discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Note: Additional publications on evolution and the historical sciences by the Darwin-L list owner are available on SSRN.
<5:96>From HOLSINGE@UCONNVM.BITNET Tue Jan 18 12:03:50 1994 Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 07:53:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Kent E. Holsinger" <HOLSINGE%UCONNVM.BITNET@KU9000.CC.UKANS.EDU> Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu Scott DeLancey writes: > There is no imaginable process that would produce convergence in > vocabularies. Similarities in vocabulary beyond what can be expected by > chance can only reflect common inheritance (i.e. genetic relationship) > or borrowing. Now I'm confused. I suggested the parallel with convergent evolution because Sally Thomason seemed to suggest that borrowing (hybridization as we biologists would call it) is extremely limited between distantly related languages. Her comments were, as I recall, offered in response to my suggestion that perhaps linguistic evolution is more reticulate than biological evolution. She was arguing (and I *thought* Scott agreed with her) that reticulation wasn't the correct explanation. Well, if reticulation isn't the answer, then convergence is the only alternative I can think of. What am I missing? -- Kent +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kent E. Holsinger Internet: Holsinge@UConnVM.UConn.edu | | Dept. of Ecology & BITNET: Holsinge@UConnVM | | Evolutionary Biology, U-43 | | University of Connecticut | | Storrs, CT 06269-3043 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Your Amazon purchases help support this website. Thank you!