Editing Mass comparison (section)

== Methodology ==

The idea of mass comparison method is that a group of languages is related when they show numerous resemblances in vocabulary, including [[pronoun]]s, and [[morpheme]]s, forming an interlocking pattern common to the group. Unlike the [[comparative method (linguistics)|comparative method]], mass comparison does not require any regular or systematic correspondences between the languages compared; all that is required is an impressionistic feeling of similarity. Greenberg does not establish a clear standard for determining relatedness; he does not set a standard for what he considers a "resemblance" or how many resemblances are needed to prove relationship.<ref name="Campbell and Poser 2008">{{cite book |last1=Campbell |first1=Lyle |author-link=Lyle Campbell|last2=Poser|first2=William J.|author-link2=William Poser|date=2008 |title=Language Classification: History and Method|location=Cambridge |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-0-511-41381-0}}</ref>

Mass comparison is done by setting up a table of basic vocabulary items and their forms in the languages to be compared for resemblances. The table can also include common morphemes. The following table was used by <ref>{{Harvtxt|Greenberg|1957|p=41}}</ref> to illustrate the technique. It shows the forms of six items of basic vocabulary in nine different languages, identified by letters.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!width="40"|
!width="40"|A
!width="40"|B
!width="40"|C
!width="40"|D
!width="40"|E
!width="40"|F
!width="40"|G
!width="40"|H
!width="40"|I
|-
|Head ||kar ||kar ||se ||kal ||tu ||tu ||to ||fi ||pi
|-
|Eye ||min ||ku ||min ||miŋ ||min ||aš ||min ||idi ||iri
|-
|Nose ||tor ||tör ||ni ||tol ||was ||waš ||was ||ik ||am
|-
|One ||mit ||kan ||kan ||kaŋ ||ha ||kan ||kεn ||he ||čak
|-
|Two ||ni ||ta ||ne ||kil ||ne ||ni ||ne ||gum ||gun
|-
|Blood ||kur ||sem ||sem ||šam ||i ||sem ||sem ||fik ||pix
|}

According to Greenberg, basic relationships can be determined without any experience in the case of languages that are fairly closely related, though knowledge of probable paths of sound change acquired through [[linguistic typology|typology]] allows one to go farther faster. For instance, the path ''p'' > ''f'' is extremely frequent, but the path ''f'' > ''p'' is much less so, enabling one to hypothesize that ''fi'' : ''pi'' and ''fik'' : ''pix'' are indeed related and go back to protoform *''pi'' and *''pik/x''. Similarly, while knowledge that ''k'' > ''x'' is extremely frequent, ''x'' > ''k'' is much less so enables one to choose *''pik'' over *''pix''. Thus, according to Greenberg (2005:318), phonological considerations come into play from the very beginning, even though mass comparison does not attempt to produce reconstructions of [[Proto-language|protolanguages]] as these belong to a later phase of study. The tables used in actual mass comparison involve much larger numbers of items and languages. The items included may be either lexical, such as 'hand', 'sky', and 'go', or morphological, such as [[Plural|PLURAL]] and [[Grammatical gender|MASCULINE]].<ref>{{Harv|Ruhlen|1987|p=120}}</ref> For Greenberg, the results achieved through mass comparison approached certainty:<ref>{{Harv|Greenberg|1957|p=39}}</ref> "The presence of fundamental vocabulary resemblances and resemblances in items with grammatical function, particularly if recurrent through a number of languages, is a sure indication of genetic relationship."