Editing Mass comparison (section)

=== Borrowing ===

A prominent criticism of mass comparison is that it cannot distinguish [[Borrowing (linguistics)|borrowed]] forms from inherited ones, unlike comparative reconstruction, which is able to do so through regular sound correspondences. Undetected borrowings within Greenberg's data support this claim; for instance, he lists "[[cognate]]s" of [[Uwa language|Uwa]] ''baxita'' "machete", even though it is a borrowing from [[Spanish language|Spanish]] {{Wikt-lang|es|machete}}.<ref name="Campbell 1997"/><ref>{{Harvtxt|Greenberg|1957|p=39}}</ref> admits that "in particular and infrequent instances the question of borrowing may be doubtful" when using mass comparison, but claims that basic vocabulary is unlikely to be borrowed compared to cultural vocabulary, stating that "where a mass of resemblances is due to borrowing, they will tend to appear in cultural vocabulary and to cluster in certain semantic areas which reflect the cultural nature of the contact." Mainstream linguists accept this premise, but claim that it does not suffice for distinguishing borrowings from [[Genetic relationship (linguistics)|inherited vocabulary]].<ref name="Campbell 1997"/>

According to him, any type of linguistic item may be borrowed "on occasion", but "fundamental vocabulary is proof against mass borrowing". However, languages can and do borrow basic vocabulary. For instance, in the words of Campbell, [[Finnish language|Finnish]] has borrowed "from its [[Baltic languages|Baltic]] and [[Germanic languages|Germanic]] neighbors various terms for basic kinship and body parts, including 'mother', 'daughter', 'sister', 'tooth', 'navel', 'neck', 'thigh', and 'fur{{'"}}. Greenberg continues by stating that "[D]erivational, inflectional, and pronominal morphemes and morph alternations are the least subject of all to borrowing"; he does incorporate [[Morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] and [[pronominal]] correlations when performing mass comparison, but they are peripheral and few in number compared to his [[Lexis (linguistics)|lexical]] comparisons. Greenberg himself acknowledges the peripheral role they play in his data by saying that they are "not really necessary". Furthermore, the correlations he lists are neither exclusive to or universally found within the languages which he compares. Greenberg is correct in pointing out that borrowing of pronouns or morphology is rare, but it cannot be ruled out without recourse to a method more sophisticated than mass comparison.<ref name="Campbell and Poser 2008"/><ref name="Campbell 1997"/><ref name="Campbell 1994">{{Cite journal|last=Campbell |first=Lyle |author-link=Lyle Campbell|title=Inside the American Indian Language Classification Debate|journal=Mother Tongue|issue=23|pages=41–54|date=November 1994}}</ref>

Greenberg continues by claiming that "[R]ecurrent sound correspondences" do not suffice to detect borrowing, since "where loans are numerous, they often show such correspondences".<ref>{{Harv|Greenberg|1957|pp=39&ndash;40}}</ref> However, Greenberg misrepresents the practices of mainstream [[comparative linguistics]] here; few linguists advocate using sound correspondences to the exclusion of all other kinds of evidence. This additional evidence often helps separate borrowings from inherited vocabulary; for instance, Campbell mentions how "[c]ertain sorts of patterned grammatical evidence (that which resists explanation from borrowing, accident, or [[Typology (linguistics)|typology]] and [[Linguistic universal|universals]]) can be important testimony, independent of the issue of sound correspondences".<ref name="Campbell 1994"/> It may not always be possible to separate borrowed and inherited material, but any method has its limits; in the vast majority of cases, the difference can discerned.<ref name="Campbell and Poser 2008"/>