Editor for this issue: <>
Am I the only one who is appalled to see the abuse of probabilistic reasoning which Greenberg and Ruhlen resort to in their article in November Sc. Am.? They show that two languages, Halkomelem and Tfalkit (or something like that) have similar words with a similar meaning (just one word per language), calculate the probability of a pair like occurring in a random pair of languages, and say, My God, it's got to be common origin. This utter nonsense, since all the calculation shows is that you should not expect to find the same in every (or even in many) pairs of languages, but there is nothing wrong with it happening in a particular pair. It's like saying that Columbus and Leif Eriksson must have been working together, because it is just too unlikely that they could have discovered the same continent by chance. Incidentally, this kind of reasoning seems to recur fairly often in various sciences (I recall some papers by Guiora on the so- called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis a few years ago that did something similar). Is there any literature on such fallacies? (Linguistically, of course, the best way to see this is a fallacy is to see that similar forms with similar meanings are not all uncommon in situations where we KNOW the origin is not the same, e.g., English 'ear (of corn)' vs. 'ear', German 'Braten' (noun) vs. 'braten' (verb), and so on. If we can have coincidences like this in a single language, we can certainly have them across a pair of languages.)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue