Comments on: An Introduction to Historical Linguistics http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2005/10/17/an-introduction-to-historical-linguistics/ Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:32:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jon Boy http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2005/10/17/an-introduction-to-historical-linguistics/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Jon Boy Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:10:31 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=6#comment-3 Yes, I think asterisks are used to indicate bad formations, possible forms, or unattested forms. Yes, I think asterisks are used to indicate bad formations, possible forms, or unattested forms.

]]> By: pooka http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2005/10/17/an-introduction-to-historical-linguistics/comment-page-1/#comment-2 pooka Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:10:42 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=6#comment-2 Nice font here in the reply section! And an interesting story. It reminds me of how the cladistics or arrangement of animals into family trees used to be based largely on form but is increasingly informed by genetics. Also, do they still use asterisks to indicate bad formations in linguistics? When I was a young 'un, at least, a couple of possible solutions (such as for rules of epenthesis) would be presented, but you could choose between them by seeing what forms they would predict, but which don't exist. Nice font here in the reply section!
And an interesting story. It reminds me of how the cladistics or arrangement of animals into family trees used to be based largely on form but is increasingly informed by genetics.

Also, do they still use asterisks to indicate bad formations in linguistics? When I was a young ‘un, at least, a couple of possible solutions (such as for rules of epenthesis) would be presented, but you could choose between them by seeing what forms they would predict, but which don’t exist.

]]>