Editor for this issue: <>
Alexis_Manaster_Ramer half-answered the question by STEVEROYMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueIDUI1.CSRV.UIDAHO.EDU asking whether Greenberg and Ruhlen assume that basic vocabulary is more resistant to sound change, correctly saying that they do not. But the other half of the answer is that Greenberg and Ruhlen apparently assume that basic vocabulary IS more resistant to lexical replacement so that after a long period of time, two distantly related languages are more likely to share resemblances in basic vocabulary than in nonbasic vocabulary. In addition, they apparently assume that basic vocabulary is more likely to survive than nonbasic vocabulary in words that do not share the original meaning but have undergone semantic change. What these two share is the idea that after long periods of time, basic vocabulary is more likely to survive in cognates in daughter languages than nonbasic vocabulary is. Matthew Dryer