Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty
linguistlist.org>
I am not a member of any networks, preferring to spend my retirement years in work on Nilo-Saharan and Omotic to chit-chat, but I occasionally see something which has appeared on the network(s). I just saw something from Alexis Manaster-Ramer which refers, I suppose, to my 1973 paper in "Language Sciences" on why one cannot reconstruct "Proto-Human". The comparison of the argument therein to Goedel or Turing is not apposite. The latter are dealing with axiomatic systems having no necessary analogs in the physical world. If there is any connection, it would be in showing that human language has an underlying abstract code which is subject to Goedel's results in some way- I tried this years ago but gave it up. I'm just no longer mathematician enough to handle this sort of stuff (maybe never was). A better comparison might be archeology: from the physical assemblages, one can arive at limited conjectures about such things as prehistoric shelters, diets, etc., much less so about ideology. The names of individuals,even of leaders, their personality quirks, the particular incidents of daily life, etc. These are not reconstructable by archeological methods unless so-far-unknown written records or other such recordings are discovered. So, too, we can make speculations about the nature of prehistoric languages before the comparative method (a probability-based method!) allows us to reconstruct with even a low level of certainty. But these will be general and vague: not specific morphemes. Unless some alien species contacts us with recordings they made in ancient contacts, it is hard to see how we can compensate for millenia of probabilistic change in a system whose basis includes a high degree of arbitrariness. Lionel, June 3Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue