Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix.gen.nz!zohrab_p
From: zohrab_p@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab)
Subject: historical linguistics
Message-ID: <D3y5L0.B10@actrix.gen.nz>
Sender: news@actrix.gen.nz (News Administrator)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:24:34 GMT
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
Lines: 27

I am now home from Germany, and I'd like to have another go at getting a
straight answer to a straight question:

When a language or language group (say Thai or Tai) resembles one language or
language-group ( say Chinese) phonologically, morphologically and
syntactically (aka typologically), but does not resemble it in that portion of
its vocabulary which is deemed to be least likely to have been borrowed, by
what precise chain of logical reasoning does one conclude that the two
languages/language-groups are not genetically related, which is what people do
seem to conclude -- or by what reasoning do you reach any conclusion at all in
such cases ?

In other words, given that a large group of languages/dialects of
East/Southeast Asia contains striking mutual phonological, syntactic, and 
morphological similarities, are these similarities

a) accidental;
b) borrowed from one another;
or c) signs of a family relationship ?

Why is there, apparently, such a strong tendency for historical linguists to
assume that lexical similarites are signs of a genetic relationship, and that
mere "typological" similarities are something with no genetic relevance ?

Peter Zohrab.


