292:(and I sincerely hope his last), W.P. Lehmann undertakes to explain internal reconstruction for the benefit of his non-linguistic readers. The page is utterly incomprehensible even if you know what he's trying to say, which is likely to be the reaction of an uninformed reader, too; and the specific example he presents at the end is both (a) not an example of internal reconstruction in the first place and (b) every bit as incomprehensible as the passage preceding it. Differently, Terry Crowley's introduction to historical linguistics is a useful and well-written book, and delightfully refreshing because most of his examples are from Austronesian languages. But: almost every venture into (Indo-)European languages is a botch -- incorrectly cited forms, faulty analysis, complications that he's unaware of, and so on. Put differently, citing Crowley's "examples" simply because they've appeared in a printed book would be in the last degree unwise.
264:, that he is always impressed by my ability "to write interestingly even about dry subjects". So might I suggest that before you rewrite anything, you get a second (or third & fourth) opinion? Incidentally, so far from anything herein being "original research", it is in fact all perfectly standard handbook stuff, well known to anyone with professional experience in diachronic linguistics, leavened by lessons from experience both in and out of the classroom.
81:
71:
53:
22:
843:
citations not just to inject more authority into the discussion, but also to help interested readers explore the ideas behind the statements in more depth. They might introduce the reader to other books and websites dedicated to the subject. Without further clarification, we have to assume that all of the text in this article is just Sihler's original research.
890:
Finally, if all of these fixes are just too hard to bear, consider moving the article, as is, into a
Wikibook. Wikibooks are maintained by the Wikimedia foundation, have tremendous prestige, and are free (as in beer) for all to read for countless generations. This article is already in textbook style
367:
Note to
Dbachmann: not clear what the reference to n ~ ṇ is; apparently someone has deleted the passage. (And in general the whole article makes less sense than I believe it did, if I may say so, when it was first written.) If the reference is (was) to Sanskrit phonology, I beg to differ: /n/ and /ṇ/
233:
Anyway, what you've written is very impressive and shows that you are clearly well-versed in historical linguistics methodology. The problem is that it's out of place both in content and in style. Perhaps, rather than having four in-depth examples with painstaking analyses we could select one example
184:
As this is an article about internal reconstruction rather than about the comparative method, it seems inappropriate to give so much attention to the comparative method. It seems that your purpose was to contrast the comparative method and internal reconstruction, so I'm going to restore the sentence
855:
noted, this article suffers from "Wall-of-Text syndrome". It engages the reader for paragraphs and paragraphs (nine in one case) without taking a break to produce a heading, or any other navigation aid, that allows an interested reader to skip over sections they already are familiar with or allows a
259:
I'm afraid that the examples you give of what you see as faults in presentation/discussion/tone, leave me quite at sea over what the problem is. It has always been my preference to try to engage the reader in a sort of conversation, while at the same time maintaining appropriately rigorous technical
444:
This is less a
Knowledge (XXG) article than it is an original-work treatise by a very knowledgeable expert who knows how to write essays and books for consumption by other budding experts; but quite clearly not for a merely interested reader who might happen by. The style and tone in particular are
342:
Lehmann's theories on these points do not merit perpetuation; and the passage is far too vague and allusive to be of any use to anyone in any case; and is poorly written besides. (I do not remember writing it, and
Lehmann actually makes the most minimal use of Internal Reconstruction in framing his
209:
Overall, I intend to eliminate the "textbook" / tone that speaks with unjustified authority on the topic, and makes irrelevant subjective claims, all without sufficient supporting citations. This could be regarded as original research which is, of course, against WP policy. Also, the goal is not so
484:
I suppose by now you've succeeded in dumbing this down? Thanks loads! Do you know how much money a person can spend on decent linguistics literature?? And Sihler is a master in his field! What makes you think everyone who turns here should be "merely interested"? -- Your complaints seem to be
166:
Alsihler: I'm glad to see some examples added to the page. Thanks for doing that. However, I feel like your rewrite had the overall effect of making the article much more difficult for a novice to understand, and as such I plan to make some changes. One change will be to delete this segment of the
804:
All of these examples make great copy for a textbook! I would surely read more of Sihler's texts, if I had them. The examples aren't, however, acceptable in a reference work. Knowledge (XXG) seeks to make the writer nearly invisible and pretends that the reader doesn't even have a body. A day may
275:
to show dramatically remote phonological correspondences). Otherwise, different authorities choose examples that appeal to them for whatever reason, some of which are encountered elsewhere, some not. There is no difference between the two types. I don't recollect, for example, ever seeing
English
213:
In the case of languages whose histories are well understood, either via the comparative method or historical attestation of significant time-depth, internal reconstruction is little more than an entertaining parlor-game, at best a kind of test to see if the data and the reasoning applied to them
842:
There is one in-line citation provided in this entire article and I must admit, it is a miserable link to a
Powerpoint presentation of a class outline of linguistics course at UNC that I added mere hours ago. This article contains hundreds of blanket statements which deserve citations. It needs
808:
Statements that something "is interesting", or that something "should not be done" are not neutral in tone. They advocate a position, however uncontested it may be, and assign subjective values that can't be quantified. They don't make good encyclopedic facts. What would make a good statement?
300:
to a friend of his, who reproached him later for making him lose a whole night's sleep because he couldn't make himself stop reading. I don't think it's overweening pride to suspect that fascination with the subject was not the whole explanation (if it was, he should steer clear of Hans Hock's
171:
The comparative method's goal is to see if such patterns of similarity and difference can be explained most economically by the theory that two (or more) languages were formerly a single language, as indicated by (a) plausible surmises as to the structural details of the basic elements of that
868:
Sometimes a concept is so complex that it warrants breaking the article into several articles. This subject could be one of them. Perhaps "Latin" and "English" under the "Examples" section could become new articles: "Internal reconstruction of
English" and "Internal reconstruction of Latin".
220:
This is in part from necessity: the data themselves are basically different in the two types of historical analysis. The whole of a language is the comparative method's arena; internal reconstruction is practically limited to those components of a single language which obligingly exhibit
295:
I'm sorry to be so grumpy, but you probably can imagine why. To repeat what I've already said, you really ought to shop around a little to see if others share your opinions about the style and manner of my article. Not long ago, a former student of mine recommended my book
337:
language. In his book with this title
Lehmann has reconstructed the lexicon, syntax and morphology of such a language. There is also a discussion of its phonology and the culture of its speakers. It is suggested that the people were a pre-ceramic Neolithic society.
288:), but if one were to do so, it would not be "original research": all the connecting links etc. are to be found in published sources: handbooks, etymological dictionaries, and so on. Nor is a published example by definition beyond reproach. In his recent book
234:
to give a more general illustration. If there is still a desire to get into more detail, we could do so under sub-headings that quickly identify some common issues in internal reconstruction. For example, the discussion of neutralizing environments.
255:
I have to confess that all the criticisms of my handiwork baffle me. First, the dividing line between a "'textbook' tone that speaks with unjustified (eh?) authority" and an "encyclopedia article" is too faint for these old eyes to see clearly.
805:
come when
Knowledge (XXG) is engraved on the surface of an asteroid and read by an intelligent, alien race of machines who seek to understand our long-lost civilization; words like "we" and "you" make a lot of assumptions about them.
541:
Knowledge (XXG) is meant to be a trustworthy starting place on just about any subject. To be trustworthy it must be verifiable—meaning that any user should be able to cross-reference the statements made in the article
859:
Wall-of-Text is curable. The cure comes from creating sections and sub-sections. Introduce a topic in a section, then show examples, counter-examples, and debates within. Move on to the next topic with a new section.
240:
I'm going to delete all of the "Note" sections, restore the original introductory paragraphs, and do a bit of reorganization for now, but there will still be much to do. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks!
530:
The information in this article is important. It is written in beautiful, flowing prose by an obvious expert in the field. It is understandable to those relevant in the art. It just doesn't conform to the norms of
877:
The article's lead in needs to be shortened and summarized. The sentences that read "For example, ..." need to be moved elsewhere. An introduction is meant to introduce, not to tell a life story. Examples are
267:
Finally, I'm quite at sea over the query about the "source" of examples, etc. Examples are just that, examples. There is no canon of examples in linguistics, except for a few chestnuts (like
Armenian
178:, as it is called, and (b) a collection of regular or otherwise defensible developments through time that account for the patterns of differences and similarities as seen in the attested languages.
237:
By the way, what is the source of your examples and analysis? If these are your own work, they should probably be removed in favor of using examples from an established source, such as Campbell.
155:
I'm undertaking a complete revision of this article. As written, it can hardly be understood by anyone who doesn't already know what the term means, which is a demerit in a reference work.
196:
form, internal reconstruction compares variant forms within a single language under the assumption that they descend from a single, regular form. For example, these could take the form of
368:
were most definitely different phonemes, if not to begin with, of course. Already in the Rigveda there forms with "unmotivated" ṇ, and n where cerebralization would be expected (e.g.
260:
accuracy. A colleague (who, as it happens, sits in the oldest chair of Indo-European Studies in all of Europe) flattered me by remarking, after reading a recent monograph of mine on
210:
much to create a handbook or instruction manual on how to become a gifted practitioner of internal reconstruction, but rather to write an encyclopedia article. Examples:
252:
Well, at least we both seem to agree that 45-odd years of studying, teaching, and publishing on historical linguistic matters has resulted in some level of competence.
1032:
376:
in RV 3.26.5c, where the -n- is unexpected. To be sure, across compound boundaries cerebralization is unpredictable, tending not to occur but in say the inflection of
127:
333:
By using the method of internal reconstruction an earlier stage can be determined. Some linguists, such as Lehmann (2002), propose they can reconstruct aspects of a
912:
Why has someone messed up the spelling in the Spanish example? If you want a phonemic spelling, use the IPA. There's no need to go messing around with orthography.
550:. To be a starting place no single article can delve too deeply into any subject without risking being unapproachable. These are not my requirements, nor are they
133:
380:
it is quite regular. (It can hardly be argued with a straight face that the compound status of the word was opaque to Sanskrit speakers.) The preverb sequence
565:
This masterful article, as it currently stands, violates these principles. This is a harsh statement. However, is not a disagreement with statements such as "
1037:
103:
1027:
955:
913:
94:
58:
856:
hurried (but knowledgeable) reader to jump into a section containing information they really need. In short, it's just hard to navigate.
445:
out of place, featuring narrative rhetoric and colloquialisms such as "Now, ...", and suffering at times from Wall-of-Text syndrome.
429:
624:
The article's tone (who its writer pretends to be, whom it purports to talk to, how it introduces factual data) needs to change.
343:
theories.) Anyone who'd like a more detailed discussion of the shortcomings of a very bad book, please see my review of it in
33:
192:
compares variations between languages — such as in sets of cognates — under the assumption that they descend from a single
827:
797:
775:
757:
735:
709:
686:
667:
649:
817:
787:
766:
744:
725:
695:
676:
658:
639:
325:
222:
959:
917:
39:
523:
1009:
102:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
612:
559:
21:
393:
348:
302:
156:
555:
543:
450:
397:
352:
306:
189:
86:
547:
680:
but a basic principle of linguistic analysis is that one cannot analyze data they do not have (
944:
426:
717:
628:
347:
which has the merit of being a good deal more accessible than a monograph published by JIES.
1005:
898:
467:
493:)." Have you also gone and watered down the math, chemistry and physics articles so that
321:
261:
242:
193:
174:
1021:
852:
822:
551:
446:
1013:
963:
948:
940:
921:
902:
471:
454:
401:
356:
310:
245:
159:
894:
729:
changes accumulate in the structure of a (living) language, and for this reason
463:
99:
954:
Either that or some expert(s) rework it entirely. Citations are needed anyway.
80:
76:
197:
538:
It needn't be deleted nor dumbed down; it simply needs to be restructured.
505:
Mona Lisa but not on them? Your attitude is very much unappreciated. :~
384:
sometimes cerebralizes, sometimes not. The same goes for enclitics, like
301:
introduction to historical linguistics, which would likely prove fatal).
201:
1001:
324:, use the term "Pre-Indo-European" to refer to an earlier stage of the
985:
320:===Indo-European=== Some comparative Indo-European linguists, such as
70:
52:
997:
993:
989:
981:
546:. To be trustworthy it cannot be the sole source of a statement, it
793:
any generalizations about the membership of verbs in Types I and II
462:
I agree. The text is informative, but it needs its tone reworked.
581:". On the contrary! This article simply needs to be restructured.
554:'s requirements; they are Knowledge (XXG)'s core principles (see
1000:
is a strong verb, so it shouldn't be in this list. In German,
935:, the article still references examples in Samoan, which were
814:
784:
763:
741:
722:
692:
673:
655:
636:
15:
228:
To a historian's eye, it is obvious what is going on, here.
328:, reached through the method of internal reconstruction.
936:
932:
217:
This is an interesting point, and an insightful one,...
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
425:. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.
132:This article has not yet received a rating on the
604:The lead in needs to be shortened and summarized.
573:" so that it can only be read by someone who is "
577:" in the subject, nor is it an exhortation to "
773:an unambiguous rule for the infinitive forms:
185:from the previous version that did just that:
8:
891:and would make a great start as a Wikibook.
501:not? Why is it okay to draw a mustache on
284:(it's a loan from a French reflex of Latin
47:
847:Breaking into more sections, sub-sections
643:When undertaking a comparative study ...
594:It needs to be broken into more sections.
588:The article's tone needs to be re-worked.
548:must reference other, published, material
1033:Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
782:and even poses pedagogical questions.
414:
316:That said, I'm deleting the following:
112:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics
49:
19:
615:, "Knowledge (XXG) is not a textbook")
607:The text might be better published as
516:Why style, tone, and complexity matter
988:actually are denominal verbs, though
372:- on the one hand and something like
7:
939:. I propose that the references go.
92:This article is within the scope of
597:It may need to be broken into more
579:draw a mustache on 'this' Mona Lisa
38:It is of interest to the following
825:disagrees with the practice of...
544:against another trustworthy source
14:
1038:WikiProject Linguistics articles
567:Sihler is a master in his field!
115:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
79:
69:
51:
20:
497:don't strain you? And if not,
533:a good Knowledge (XXG) article
485:saying, "This is too hard for
280:cited as a cognate of English
1:
922:14:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
718:directly addresses the reader
584:Here's what needs to happen:
106:and see a list of open tasks.
1028:C-Class Linguistics articles
964:12:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
949:15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
472:04:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
455:14:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
421:Lehmann, Winfred P. (2002).
402:18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
357:22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
326:Proto-Indo-European language
311:00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
160:22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
903:01:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
864:Breaking into more articles
1054:
1014:23:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
591:It needs inline citations.
440:Style, tone and complexity
134:project's importance scale
992:is much more common than
569:". It is not a call for "
131:
64:
46:
886:Publishing as a Wikibook
838:Adding in-line citations
809:Perhaps something like,
246:23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
996:in modern English, and
662:Lyle Campbell...raises
151:Revision of the article
95:WikiProject Linguistics
873:Shortening the lead in
664:an interesting caution
28:This article is rated
682:and should not try to
629:neutral point of view
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1004:is in both classes.
701:an interesting point
118:Linguistics articles
627:It does not take a
620:Re-working the tone
388:"carry us" next to
933:revision 577155539
190:comparative method
87:Linguistics portal
34:content assessment
880:in later sections
832:
831:
802:
801:
780:
779:
762:
761:
740:
739:
714:
713:
691:
690:
672:
671:
654:
653:
575:merely interested
571:dumbing this down
524:IfYouDoIfYouDon't
423:Pre-Indo-European
335:Pre-Indo-European
290:Pre-Indo-European
167:first paragraph:
148:
147:
144:
143:
140:
139:
1045:
908:Spanish Spelling
815:
785:
764:
742:
723:
693:
674:
656:
645:it is worthwhile
637:
507:
506:
432:
419:
298:Language History
214:actually "work";
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1018:
1017:
979:
937:removed in 2010
929:
927:Samoan examples
910:
888:
875:
866:
849:
840:
751:two choices if
622:
522:In response to
518:
442:
437:
436:
435:
420:
416:
322:Winfred Lehmann
153:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
78:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1051:
1049:
1041:
1040:
1035:
1030:
1020:
1019:
978:
968:
967:
966:
956:151.177.58.208
928:
925:
914:101.166.150.53
909:
906:
887:
884:
874:
871:
865:
862:
848:
845:
839:
836:
830:
829:
826:
819:
812:
800:
799:
796:
789:
778:
777:
774:
768:
760:
759:
756:
746:
738:
737:
734:
727:
712:
711:
708:
705:insightful one
697:
689:
688:
685:
678:
670:
669:
666:
660:
652:
651:
648:
641:
634:
621:
618:
617:
616:
605:
602:
595:
592:
589:
517:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
491:my/our friends
477:
476:
475:
474:
441:
438:
434:
433:
413:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
361:
314:
262:Edgerton's Law
250:
249:
248:
238:
235:
231:
230:
229:
226:
218:
215:
207:
206:
205:
194:proto-language
182:
181:
180:
175:proto-language
163:
152:
149:
146:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
130:
124:
123:
121:
104:the discussion
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1050:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
976:
972:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
926:
924:
923:
919:
915:
907:
905:
904:
900:
896:
892:
885:
883:
881:
872:
870:
863:
861:
857:
854:
846:
844:
837:
835:
824:
823:Andrew Sihler
820:
816:
813:
810:
806:
794:
790:
786:
783:
772:
769:
765:
755:to the data:
754:
750:
747:
743:
732:
731:we always try
728:
724:
721:
719:
706:
702:
698:
694:
683:
679:
675:
665:
661:
657:
646:
642:
638:
635:
632:
630:
625:
619:
614:
610:
606:
603:
600:
596:
593:
590:
587:
586:
585:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
563:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
539:
536:
534:
528:
526:
525:
515:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
439:
431:
430:0-941694-82-8
428:
424:
418:
415:
411:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:varṣánirṇijaḥ
371:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
340:
339:
336:
330:
329:
327:
323:
317:
313:
312:
308:
304:
299:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
265:
263:
257:
253:
247:
244:
239:
236:
232:
227:
224:
219:
216:
212:
211:
208:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
186:
183:
179:
177:
176:
169:
168:
165:
164:
162:
161:
158:
150:
135:
129:
126:
125:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
980:
974:
970:
930:
911:
893:
889:
879:
876:
867:
858:
850:
841:
833:
811:
807:
803:
792:
781:
771:we can write
770:
752:
748:
730:
715:
704:
700:
681:
663:
644:
633:
626:
623:
608:
598:
583:
578:
574:
570:
566:
564:
540:
537:
532:
529:
521:
519:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
443:
422:
417:
409:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
360:
344:
341:
334:
332:
331:
319:
318:
315:
297:
294:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
268:
266:
258:
254:
251:
200:of the same
188:Whereas the
173:
170:
154:
93:
40:WikiProjects
834:and so on.
791:Can we make
613:WP:TEXTBOOK
560:WP:ORIGINAL
345:Diachronica
223:alternation
109:Linguistics
100:linguistics
59:Linguistics
1022:Categories
609:a Wikibook
410:References
392:and so on.
243:RockRockOn
198:allomorphs
821:Linguist
703:, and an
556:WP:VERIFY
390:bhara ṇaḥ
386:bhara naḥ
378:vṛtrahan-
271:< PIE
878:great...
853:GavinZac
753:we stick
699:This is
599:articles
552:GavinZac
447:GavinZac
394:Alsihler
349:Alsihler
303:Alsihler
202:morpheme
157:Alsihler
941:LLarson
749:We have
611:. (See
382:pra-ni-
30:C-class
1002:senden
931:As of
895:Ke6jjj
464:Ke6jjj
286:podium
36:scale.
986:bleed
977:verbs
487:me/us
273:*duwo
1010:talk
1006:phma
998:read
994:moot
990:meet
984:and
982:meet
975:-ted
973:and
960:talk
945:talk
918:talk
899:talk
733:...
707:...
647:...
503:this
495:they
489:(or
468:talk
451:talk
427:ISBN
398:talk
370:guṇa
353:talk
307:talk
282:foot
269:erku
851:As
720:,
716:It
562:).
499:why
278:pew
128:???
1024::
1012:)
971:-t
962:)
947:)
920:)
901:)
882:.
828:”
818:“
798:”
795:?
788:“
776:”
767:“
758:”
745:“
736:”
726:“
710:”
696:“
687:”
684:)
677:“
668:”
659:“
650:”
640:“
631:.
558:,
535:.
527:)
470:)
453:)
400:)
355:)
309:)
241:--
1008:(
958:(
943:(
916:(
897:(
601:.
520:(
466:(
449:(
396:(
351:(
305:(
225:,
204:.
136:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
