Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Re: Origin of Thematic Neuter -om (was: 1sg. -o:)

Expand Messages
  • Miguel Carrasquer
    On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:39:02 +0000, etherman23 ... Final stops (after a vowel) are always voiced in Latin: *-t ... ======================= Miguel Carrasquer
    Message 1 of 720 , Sep 3 7:25 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:39:02 +0000, etherman23
      <etherman23@...> wrote:

      >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
      >> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:22:18 +0000, etherman23
      >> <etherman23@y...> wrote:
      >>
      >> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@y...> wrote:
      >> >>
      >> >> Etherman23:
      >> >> > Don't you find it just a little bit too coincidental
      >> >> > that there's a reconstructable particle *H2ebhi?
      >> >>
      >> >> Shouldn't that be *h1ebHi with *h1? You're basing this
      >> >> on the Anatolian locatives like Lycian /ebi-/, right?
      >> >
      >> >I just double checked and it's actually H3ebhi, as in Lat. ob.
      >>
      >> Latin ob is likely from *(h1)op(i) ~ *(h1)epi.
      >
      >How do you explain the Latin voiced plosive?

      Final stops (after a vowel) are always voiced in Latin: *-t
      > -d, *-p > -b.

      =======================
      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      mcv@...
    • Patrick Ryan
      This is a polite and reasoned response to my criticisms. It is a method of answering criticism we could all seek to emulate. Bravo, Grzegorz. Patrick ... From:
      Message 720 of 720 , Oct 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        This is a polite and reasoned response to my criticisms.

        It is a method of answering criticism we could all seek to emulate.

        Bravo, Grzegorz.


        Patrick


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
        To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:07 AM
        Subject: Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: *kap-


        > Patrick Ryan wrote:
        > > ***
        > > Patrick:
        > >
        > > I am going to comment here on the language being used not on the main
        > > argument which is being handled nicely by Grzegorz and Brian.
        > >
        > > Grzegorz, I think you do not understand that implying someone is
        > > "undereducated", as you do here below, is an insult, and an
        > > argumentum ad hominem, even if it be true.
        >
        > Patrick, you would have been right if I had written "you are
        > undereducated".
        > But I had not. "You quote bad sources written by undereducated ones" means
        > not the same. You may term it an attack ad homines if you insist, or
        > better
        > ad personas - but it is not a direct attack towards a person I discuss
        > with.
        > A subtle but important difference.
        >
        > I only stated, and I maintain it, than most linguist (the majority) did
        > not
        > even know what Zipf wrote. They think that he wrote only about statistic
        > classes, and they quote one another in this point to motivate what they
        > think. Only few (the minority) have the consciousness that Zipf formulated
        > a
        > law which deals with probabilities and word length in a text. Which is
        > more,
        > the majority sometimes tries to send the minority back to school or
        > suggests
        > that the minority misscalls Zipf's law. Very sad, indeed.
        >
        > > Terming someone's argument "ridiculous", i.e. 'worthy of ridicule', is
        > > similarly offensive.
        >
        > Not similarly, and it is not an attack ad hominem but an attack ad
        > argumentum. Anyway, it is much less offensive than "don't be ridiculous",
        > isn't it? I have heard such lines from my adversary but he has not heard
        > such a statement from me, so you need not be his attorney.
        >
        > > I would also suggest a new thread, "Zipf's Law", since the arguments
        > > advanced bear little relationship to *kap-.
        >
        > I do not think it is needed. As I said, it was not my intention to explain
        > what Zipf's law is and what it is not, which linguists understand this
        > term
        > only like a statistic law and which linguists understand this term as a
        > law
        > saying about relations between word lengths and frequencies. I talked
        > about
        > some words which were changed due to frequency and not because of such or
        > another phonetic rule ("sound law"). I quoted Zipf's law as the base for
        > my
        > statement. And even if it appeared that there is not the accordance here
        > on
        > what Zipf's law is and what it is not, I have been under impression that
        > nobody calls my argument in question. But "has", "had" developed
        > irregularily, and they are in close relation to PIE *kVp-. Ergo: we should
        > expect that *kVp- developed irregularily in other languages as well. Ergo:
        > Latin and Germanic habe:- may be related even if against known sound
        > rules.
        > This is what is important, all the rest is unnecessary commentary.
        >
        > > What published authors (print or Net) say about
        > > Zipf is interesting
        >
        > ... but it is more interesting what Zipf himself said. I gave a quotation.
        >
        > > but lining up a group of publishers who _seem_
        > > to agree with you
        >
        > Is there any seeming in terming Zipf's law "dealing with probabilities and
        > word length in a text"? Or in the statement "George K. Zipf is famous for
        > his law of abbreviations"? (it's from the article quoted by Brian, by the
        > way) But abbreviation = a making shorter, and short has something to do
        > with
        > length, and not with statistic classes, isn't it? So, what doubt have you?
        >
        > > is only proof that some interpret Zipf in the same
        > > way that you do (if, in fact, they do - which I sincerely doubt).
        >
        > If you are interested in this problem, read W. Man'czak's book "Problemy
        > je,zykoznawstwa ogólnego". Yes, of course, the book is in Polish, and what
        > of it. Professor Man'czak, who is a Romancist and a scholar interested in
        > generel linguistics, gives a detailed analysis of the problem and plenty
        > of
        > examples on how Zipf's law functions. At the beginning of chapter 3, he
        > wrote (my translation): "even if the name of the American linguist Zipf is
        > scarcely known to most linguists, there is no doubt that the history of
        > linguistics will acknowledge him as one of the most eminent lingists of
        > the
        > 20th century". It appears that we should agree with both those statements:
        > that Zipf is scarcely known and that his law has much more universal
        > character than so called "sound laws".
        >
        > > You both want to determine exactly what Zipf had in mind with his
        > > formulation? Ask him (if he is still alive?).
        >
        > Not a problem, let's read his books. I cited him just because of this.
        >
        > Grzegorz J.
        >
        >
        >
        > ___________________________________________________________
        > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
        > Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.