> ... The linear/proportional relationship is observed, and since a linear
> relationship is the simplest relationship that can be considered it is
> probably best to stick with it. ...
NO for at least three reasons:
1) This is NOT what is observed;
2) This is NOT what is predicted by any kind of theory, since it is
trivially obvious to note that the probability that a new verb added to
the list will be a homonym is not independent of the existing number of
verbs;
3) This does NOT have the implications which you suggest for merger of
letters, because of course if two letters do merge the number of verbs
will add together, but the number of homonyms will more than add
together because new homonyms have been created. This new homonym effect
is not just a deviation but the essence of the issue.
> ... I think that if one truly
> wanted to investigate the nature of the observed relationship one
> would do the calculus to identify the relationship that is governed
> by sound laws such as the above including the above mentioned
> deviations. ...
Indeed, and that is what I have been trying to do. Why have you been
ignoring my results, and insisting that the relationship must be linear
even though the analysis as well as the data show that it is not?
> ... That is, the equation of the sound law unification of
> phonemes lays the framework for computing through calculus the
> relationship that is to be expected of a language in which this
> was a governing principle. So that would be where I'd start, but
> until then, I'd stick with the linear relationship which seems to
> fit the observed data quite well, and because of its simple nature
> does not also require complex explanations or substantiations.
>
>
You stick with your over-simplistic relationships which doesn't explain
the observations if you like, an approach which sounds about as
scholarly as Karl's, but I will follow a proper scholarly approach.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.