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

[tied] Re: Perfect passive participle

Expand Messages
  • stlatos
    ... That is not true. I gave plenty of ev. in favor of my theory and against yours; far more than you provided for it. It seems you ve chosen ignore ev. I
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 7, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
      >
      > At 1:00:07 AM on Monday, August 1, 2011, stlatos wrote:
      >
      > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
      > > <bm.brian@> wrote:
      >
      > >> At 9:36:17 PM on Sunday, July 31, 2011, stlatos wrote:
      >
      > >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "cafaristeir"
      > >> > <cafaristeir@> wrote:
      >
      > >> >> I know that the IE active participle of present and
      > >> >> aorist is in -nt, while the perfect has -wos/-us.
      > >> >> Likewise, the passive participle of present and aorist is
      > >> >> in -mH1no-
      >
      > >> > There's no ev. for -H1- or any other H here.
      >
      > >> To quote Ringe:
      >
      > > It is now clear that the PIE mediopassive participle
      > > suffix was *-mh1nó-, since that is the only shape that can
      > > account both for Gk -μενο- (/-meno-/) and Tocharian B
      > > -mane, A -māṃ (Klingenschmitt 1975: 161-3).
      >
      > >> Whether or not everyone agrees that it's persuasive, there
      > >> clearly *is* evidence.
      >
      > > This is yet another argument over semantics. I do not call
      > > data ev. just because it could be interpreted in one way;
      > > only when it does so well (has no better alternative,
      > > can't be accounted for by analogy or contamination, etc.).
      >
      > You haven't actually addressed the assertion that *-mh1nó-
      > is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments suppor it;
      > you've merely asserted a contrary opinion. And after what
      > I've seen of your opinions, methodology, and judgement over
      > the years, I've little reason to take any of them seriously.
      >


      That is not true. I gave plenty of ev. in favor of my theory and against yours; far more than you provided for it.


      It seems you've chosen ignore ev. I provide. If you've chosen to be an incompetent fool because of your personal distaste for me, then you've probably made the best choice for yourself.
    • Brian M. Scott
      ... [...] ... Don t be ridiculous: you ve addressed neither the Tocharian etyma nor the arguments in question. ... I disagree, but it doesn t matter, since
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 9, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        At 1:31:10 PM on Sunday, August 7, 2011, stlatos wrote:

        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
        > <bm.brian@...> wrote:

        [...]

        >> You haven't actually addressed the assertion that
        >> *-mh1nó- is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments
        >> suppor[t] it; you've merely asserted a contrary opinion.
        >> And after what I've seen of your opinions, methodology,
        >> and judgement over the years, I've little reason to take
        >> any of them seriously.

        > That is not true.

        Don't be ridiculous: you've addressed neither the Tocharian
        etyma nor the arguments in question.

        > I gave plenty of ev. in favor of my theory and against
        > yours;

        I disagree, but it doesn't matter, since that's beside the
        point, which is that you very obviously have not addressed
        the specific problem mentioned by Ringe.

        > far more than you provided for it.

        I offered no theory concerning the suffix and provided no
        evidence for one. I provided evidence that your assertion
        that 'There's no ev. for -H1- or any other H here' is false.

        > It seems you've chosen ignore ev. I provide.

        Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant to the
        present issue. However, I'm willing to address this one as
        well.

        You have far more linguistic data at your command than I
        have (though as some real linguists have occasionally
        demonstrated, not so much as you think), so it not
        infrequently happens that I can't evaluate your evidence
        myself. When I can, I'm generally not convinced, so I look
        upon the rest with an exceedingly jaundiced eye. In short,
        I reject or simply fail to be convinced by most of the
        purported evidence that I *can* judge and therefore cannot
        but be doubtfully agnostic (at best) about most of the rest.
        This skepticism is reinforced by the fact -- obvious for a
        long time now -- that you don't really know what to do with
        your data: your methods are a parody -- sophisticated and
        unintentional, but still a parody -- of the real thing, and
        you remain resolutely blind to their serious flaws even when
        these are explicitly pointed out. As a result, there's very
        little common ground for serious linguistic discussion, and
        I no longer waste my time trying to find any; I merely
        comment occasionally on assertions that strike me as
        exceptionally wrong-headed or that concern topics about
        which I know a fair bit.

        Bluntly, sophisticated crackpottery is still crackpottery,
        and being serious about doing linguistics in no guarantee of
        doing serious linguistics.

        Brian
      • cafaristeir
        By the way, to come back to my previous question, what do you think about my proposed analysis of *derk^etos = visible (cf. Sanskrit: darçata-; while the
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 9, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          By the way, to come back to my previous question, what do you think about my proposed analysis of *derk^etos = "visible" (cf. Sanskrit: darçata-; while the "true" past participle is "drçtà") as a medio-passive stative (perfect) subjunctive participle of *derk^ ?

          Olivier
          http://sambahsa.pbworks.com/

          --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
          >
          > At 1:31:10 PM on Sunday, August 7, 2011, stlatos wrote:
          >
          > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
          > > <bm.brian@> wrote:
          >
          > [...]
          >
          > >> You haven't actually addressed the assertion that
          > >> *-mh1nó- is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments
          > >> suppor[t] it; you've merely asserted a contrary opinion.
          > >> And after what I've seen of your opinions, methodology,
          > >> and judgement over the years, I've little reason to take
          > >> any of them seriously.
          >
          > > That is not true.
          >
          > Don't be ridiculous: you've addressed neither the Tocharian
          > etyma nor the arguments in question.
          >
          > > I gave plenty of ev. in favor of my theory and against
          > > yours;
          >
          > I disagree, but it doesn't matter, since that's beside the
          > point, which is that you very obviously have not addressed
          > the specific problem mentioned by Ringe.
          >
          > > far more than you provided for it.
          >
          > I offered no theory concerning the suffix and provided no
          > evidence for one. I provided evidence that your assertion
          > that 'There's no ev. for -H1- or any other H here' is false.
          >
          > > It seems you've chosen ignore ev. I provide.
          >
          > Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant to the
          > present issue. However, I'm willing to address this one as
          > well.
          >
          > You have far more linguistic data at your command than I
          > have (though as some real linguists have occasionally
          > demonstrated, not so much as you think), so it not
          > infrequently happens that I can't evaluate your evidence
          > myself. When I can, I'm generally not convinced, so I look
          > upon the rest with an exceedingly jaundiced eye. In short,
          > I reject or simply fail to be convinced by most of the
          > purported evidence that I *can* judge and therefore cannot
          > but be doubtfully agnostic (at best) about most of the rest.
          > This skepticism is reinforced by the fact -- obvious for a
          > long time now -- that you don't really know what to do with
          > your data: your methods are a parody -- sophisticated and
          > unintentional, but still a parody -- of the real thing, and
          > you remain resolutely blind to their serious flaws even when
          > these are explicitly pointed out. As a result, there's very
          > little common ground for serious linguistic discussion, and
          > I no longer waste my time trying to find any; I merely
          > comment occasionally on assertions that strike me as
          > exceptionally wrong-headed or that concern topics about
          > which I know a fair bit.
          >
          > Bluntly, sophisticated crackpottery is still crackpottery,
          > and being serious about doing linguistics in no guarantee of
          > doing serious linguistics.
          >
          > Brian
          >
        • stlatos
          ... Why would you think that providing one piece of supposed ev. that someone else has asserted as proof requires me to evaluate that bit alone? Such
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 9, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
            >
            > At 1:31:10 PM on Sunday, August 7, 2011, stlatos wrote:
            >
            > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
            > > <bm.brian@> wrote:
            >
            > [...]
            >
            > >> You haven't actually addressed the assertion that
            > >> *-mh1nó- is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments
            > >> suppor[t] it; you've merely asserted a contrary opinion.
            > >> And after what I've seen of your opinions, methodology,
            > >> and judgement over the years, I've little reason to take
            > >> any of them seriously.
            >
            > > That is not true.
            >
            > Don't be ridiculous: you've addressed neither the Tocharian
            > etyma nor the arguments in question.


            Why would you think that providing one piece of supposed ev. that someone else has asserted as "proof" requires me to evaluate that bit alone? Such blindness due to excessive specificity is exactly what I argued against w examples. It is solved by looking at many languages, exactly as I did. The ev. in languages with large preserved vocabularies and known sound changes shows only -meno- -mn- and so no -h1-.

            Tocharian not only treats each h() differently in some positions, but has disputed changes in some environments, etc., making it unsuitable for any such evaluation. Between N or even before a nasal, h1 ( = xY) seems to become y/i/e , probably dependent on position w/in a word:


            *xán.t.-xY-món.+ > *hantemö:n dis.> a:ntYeme > a:ñcäm (nom) TA; a:ñme = soul/self TB; *anTuma- > átum = breath OHG; æ:þm OE;


            *xan.-xY-mY0n.+ > *hanemn+ >> *hanenmö: > *a:nelme > onolme = creature / living being / person TB;

            (compare sim. in:
            hoLm = wind Ar; which also treats each h() differently in some positions ( > 0 here), between N, etc.; also n-m > L-m dis., etc.;
            )


            * xYn.ó- > *yno- > *nYo- > ñom TA; énuma- Lac G; name E;

            (compare sim. in:
            *xWNo- > *wno- > *nWo- > maku TA; ónux -khos (g) G; nagl ON; nail E;
            )


            A similar rounding _might_ be seen in:

            *xWorgWHn.o- > orkäm = darkness TA; ork(a)mo TB; orphnós = dark G;

            and, though this is one of those "disputed changes in some environments" I mentioned, helps makes the pal. seen above for xY the expected change, not -a:-.


            The only x() > a before a nasal might be for x (= h2) :

            *gWr-x- > kra:märts = heavy TA; kramartse, kra:mär = weight TB;

            though this is yet another one of those "disputed changes in some environments" I mentioned. Away from N there's plenty of ev. for x>a between C, so I have little reason to think anything except xY>e and x>a in that env. as well.


            Even away from N, it's likely xY > y/i/e :

            *gWHd.er.-xY-d.ó+ = flowing/wearing away/aging >
            *gHd.wer.-w-d.ó+ > *gHwereddö: >> *en+kwërëttö: > *onkrotte > onkrocce = immortal TB; [o-o>a] onkrac TA;

            though this is yet another one of those "disputed changes in some environments" I mentioned.


            I'd say the ev., even just the undisputed changes, suggests my rec. The only disputed change that could provide ev. against it is the one you mentioned, which is exactly what I must look at other ev. to evaluate.


            I'd say a there was a borrowing from an In-Ir language for -ma:M , etc., which is made most likely by geo. position, known history, other borrowings, etc. There's not even any real difference between the active and passive participles in Tocharian, so its age can't be proven to go back to PIE.


            > > I gave plenty of ev. in favor of my theory and against
            > > yours;
            >
            > I disagree, but it doesn't matter, since that's beside the
            > point, which is that you very obviously have not addressed
            > the specific problem mentioned by Ringe.


            Being too specific allows for the possibility of error if what you're looking at underwent irregular dis., met., etc., contamination from a sim. word (as levis : *grevis), or was a borrowing from a sim. language.


            W/in Tocharian, others' attempts to rec. onkolmo = elephant TB; [o-o>a] onkaläm TA; always include a PIE -m- , even though it's probably just contamination from the PT form of onolme = creature TB;


            W/out -m- a better rec. such as *xan.kuLn.ó+ = tusked animal; can be made:

            *xan.kuLn.ó+ > *xan.kuLón.+ > *a:nkolo > *onkolo > onkolmo [onolme <cont]; onkolmo = elephant TB; [o-o>a] onkaläm TA;


            This depends on a broad view of animal names in all IE languages, and seeing both that -no- is much more common than -mon-, and that another word w/in Tocharian can provide the solution. A specific attempt evaluating just one word would not arrive at that solution.


            > You have far more linguistic data at your command than I
            > have (though as some real linguists have occasionally
            > demonstrated, not so much as you think), so it not
            > infrequently happens that I can't evaluate your evidence
            > myself. When I can, I'm generally not convinced, so I look
            > upon the rest with an exceedingly jaundiced eye. In short,
            > I reject or simply fail to be convinced by most of the
            > purported evidence that I *can* judge and therefore cannot
            > but be doubtfully agnostic (at best) about most of the rest.
            > This skepticism is reinforced by the fact -- obvious for a
            > long time now -- that you don't really know what to do with
            > your data: your methods are a parody -- sophisticated and
            > unintentional, but still a parody -- of the real thing, and
            > you remain resolutely blind to their serious flaws even when
            > these are explicitly pointed out.


            None are perfect, but my methods have no serious flaws. Most linguists are hampered by emotional attachment to older theories and rec., individual esthetic principles, and often downright craziness.
          • Brian M. Scott
            ... The fact that someone with real credentials has singled out a specific piece of evidence as decisive should be reason enough to look at it very carefully.
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 9, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              At 3:08:18 PM on Tuesday, August 9, 2011, stlatos wrote:

              > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
              > <bm.brian@...> wrote:

              >> At 1:31:10 PM on Sunday, August 7, 2011, stlatos wrote:

              >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
              >>> <bm.brian@> wrote:

              >> [...]

              >>>> You haven't actually addressed the assertion that
              >>>> *-mh1ó- is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments
              >>>> suppor[t] it; you've merely asserted a contrary opinion.
              >>>> And after what I've seen of your opinions, methodology,
              >>>> and judgement over the years, I've little reason to take
              >>>> any of them seriously.

              >>> That is not true.

              >> Don't be ridiculous: you've addressed neither the
              >> Tocharian etyma nor the arguments in question.

              > Why would you think that providing one piece of supposed
              > ev. that someone else has asserted as "proof" requires me
              > to evaluate that bit alone?

              The fact that someone with real credentials has singled out
              a specific piece of evidence as decisive should be reason
              enough to look at it very carefully.

              However, that's beside the original point, though if you
              still don't understand the difference between 'What evidence
              exists?' and 'What conclusion is best supported by the
              existing evidence?', there's nothing I can do to help you.

              [...]

              > None are perfect, but my methods have no serious flaws.

              Apart from being sophisticated crackpottery served up with
              the expected lashings of hubris.

              I am a bit curious as to why you waste your time here,
              though. Persuading some of us that your ideas have merit
              would serve no scholarly purpose even if you could do it.
              If you're serious, organize them coherently and publish
              them. You'd have to start by justifying your non-standard
              reconstruction of PIE phonology, of course; that alone would
              probably require at least a monograph. If you can't get
              them published through any of the recognized scholarly
              outlets, there's always self-publication; nowadays it's
              pretty easy. That still wouldn't ensure that your ideas
              were seen by the relevant part of the linguistic community,
              but it would at least make them available as something more
              than the disorganized snippets that we've seen here, most of
              which rest on unjustified (and often unexplicated or even
              unstated) prior conclusions.

              Brian
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.