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

Re: [tied] Re: Stacking up on standard works

Expand Messages
  • Brian M. Scott
    ... No, regular means that its occurrence (in whatever environment is specified) *is* a rule. An empirically observed rule, but a rule none the less. ...
    Message 1 of 219 , Mar 31, 2012
      At 10:05:21 PM on Saturday, March 31, 2012, Tavi wrote:

      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
      > <gpiotr@...> wrote:

      >>> No, no. It's the sound correspondences which should be
      >>> predictable

      >> Warning: you are not using this word in its normal
      >> meaning. Sound correspondences, once established, may
      >> have some predictive power, but they are not predictable.

      > That's right. I meant lexical correspondences should be
      > (ideally) predictable from sound correspondences.

      >>> (i.e. "regular" in the traditional IE-ist jargon).

      >> Why IE-ist? Why "jargon"? Other linguists call them
      >> "regular" as well. Regular not in some strictly technical
      >> IE-ist sense of the word, but regular as everybody
      >> understands this word: recurrent, systematic and
      >> pervasive.

      > But "regular" means it obeys a rule,

      No, 'regular' means that its occurrence (in whatever
      environment is specified) *is* a rule. An empirically
      observed rule, but a rule none the less.

      > i.e. what neogrammarians called a "sound law".

      Exactly: that's precisely what a regular correspondence is:
      a Lautgesetz.

      > So I'd prefer "recurring" or "recurrent" instead.

      Thereby downgrading or outright ignoring the important
      requirements of systematicity and pervasiveness.

      >>> You see a pattern here and there, then you make a
      >>> hypothesis and test it, and if it works, voila!

      >> You make it sound very simple, but it *isn't* that simple
      >> at all. Patterns are only too easy to see. Any random
      >> process may generate "patterns". Even the stars in the
      >> sky form patterns.

      > I disagree. Randomness is just the opposite of a pattern.

      No, it isn't. There is in fact no really good general
      definition of randomness, but any mathematician can tell you
      that stochastic processes can generate very strong patterns;
      see, for example, the chaos game method of using iterated
      function systems to generate fractals. Another example is
      the ubiquity of power laws describing the distributions of
      random phenomena. See also the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld sandpile
      model.

      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_game>
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law>
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld_sandpile>

      Moreover, it is *very* well known that human beings are
      extremely good at seeing patterns, whether those patterns
      really exist or not.

      >> How do you know that the patterns you see "here and
      >> there" in two different languages are evidence of their
      >> shared ancestry?

      > IMHO all you can prove (to a reasonable degree of
      > certainity) is a set of words in language A and another
      > set of words in language B have a shared *source*.

      One can often do a great deal more, e.g., distinguish
      inheritance and borrowing from the same source.

      > The problem is that a the lexicon of a given language is
      > typically made up of several strata (multi-layer) due to
      > language replacement and contact processes, and it isn't
      > always easy to tell which is the "inherited" part.

      This is a commonplace. It's also of limited relevance to
      reconstruction of proto-languages. If F is a linguistic
      taxon, proto-F is simply the most recent common ancestor of
      F; its own history is largely irrelevant to its comparative
      reconstruction from F. For that history we must resort to
      internal reconstruction, and perhaps eventually to
      comparative reconstruction of a bigger taxon at a deeper
      historical level.

      Brian
    • dgkilday57
      ... The same thing ?! ... I do not believe that _vapor_, _vapidus_, and _vappa_ ever had /kW/-anlaut, despite the bandwagon. Either /w/-anlaut or /gW/-anlaut
      Message 219 of 219 , Mar 14, 2013
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "cewhalen" <cewhalen@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "cewhalen" <cewhalen@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > I suspect that PIE *kwo- also became *xwo- and was not subject to Moeller's rule, but the only examples I have found involve cognates to Skt. _kvathati_ 'seethes, boils' (PIE *kweth4-), and the Slavic forms appear to be borrowed from Iranian, so perhaps the Gmc. forms are as well. I will have to study this.
        > > > >
        > > > There's no borrowing. The oddities of * kwa()tH- can't be sep. from the oddities of * kwa()p(H)- , showing a common orig.
        > > >
        > > What twisted logic!
        >
        > They mean the same thing, show e vs a, a vs a: , p/pH or t/tH, etc.

        The "same thing"?!
        > >
        > > > The alt. pH \ p in:
        > > >
        > > > af-hwapjan = choke Go; apo-kapúo: = breathe away (one's last) G;
        > > >
        > > > shows pxY with opt. p > pH by x()
        > > >
        > > > and
        > > >
        > > > cupidus,
        > > > cupi:do: \ cu:pe:do: \ cuppe:do: = desire/lust/eagerness L;
        > > >
        > > > vapidus = spoiled/flat,
        > > > vappa = wine that has become flat L;
        > > > ( < * xwa:pa: )
        > > >
        > > > kvapiti = hurry Cz;
        > > > ( < * kwa:pi:- )
        > > >
        > > > kypEti = boil/run over OCS;
        > > > ku:púoti = breathe heavily Lith;
        > > >
        > > > kve:più kve:~pti = blow/breathe Lith; kve:pt = steam/smoke Latv;
        > > >
        > > > kvepiù kvepé:ti = emit odor/smell Lith;
        > > >
        > > > etc.
        > > >
        > > > shows pxY with opt. met > xYp (explaining u/u: / wa/wa: / we/we: , just as in * swadus / wa: / u / u: , etc.).
        > > >
        > > > The e/a alt., usually seen by K shows opt. ke > ka first, before met. of, say * kep-xY-w > * kap-xY-w > * kwaxYp \ kwapHxY \ etc.
        > >
        > > Your impressionistic methodology has no way of distinguishing false friends from real ones.
        > >
        > What words aren't cognates: vapidus & vappa ? cu:pe:do: \ cuppe:do: ? af-hwapjan & apo-kapúein ? I don't think I've done anything unusual in that way.
        >
        I do not believe that _vapor_, _vapidus_, and _vappa_ ever had /kW/-anlaut, despite the bandwagon. Either /w/-anlaut or /gW/-anlaut works.

        _cu:pe:do:_ and _cuppe:do:_ illustrate the dialectal _Juppiter_ effect. Note that the form with -p- is still in use.

        Go. _af-hwapjan_ and _un-hwapnands_ in my opinion continue secondary derivatives to a zero-grade noun following Kluge's Law. If it was a strong neuter (simply for example) the noun was Gmc. *xWappaN < PIE *kW&1p-no'm. The derived Gmc. verbs *xWappjanaN, *xWappnanaN regularly underwent degemination of *-pp- in this position.

        I believe the same mechanism is responsible for 'token', and the bandwagon's conclusion that Kluge's Law operated only after a short syllable is false. I have several unambiguous examples of KL after a long syllable. I also have examples of labiovelars in Kluge's position becoming -kk-, not -wn- (the two examples cited for this can be explained otherwise). This allows KL to be backdated to the Old Western IE depth, which has numerous advantages, including an explanation of 'thane' without borrowing.

        > > > > I do not understand Sean's insistence on "opt." *d ~ *t in the 'white-wheat' root, since Skt. and Lith. have -d-,
        > > > >
        > > > And t:
        > > >
        > > > çvítna- \ çvitrá- = white S;
        > > > s^vitràs = glasspaper/sandpaper Lh;
        > > >
        > > > as well as:
        > > >
        > > > çve:ta- = white S; svEtU = light (n) OCS;
        > > > etc.
        > >
        > > Either a simple root *k^wei- has different extensions and compounds, or different roots happen to have similar meanings.
        > >
        > If many, many words show -d vs -t , the likelihood of one expl. vs the other is clear.
        >
        If many, many words did show such an alternation, even the neogrammarians would have had to accept it. Osthoff speculated about an "Old PIE" soundlaw, and more recently Schrijver has argued for one (while I argued against one in "Kluge's Law in Italic?"). This is one area in which Bhr. seems to be in agreement with me. We do not like optional alternations or ghost soundlaws.

        > > > It's by comp. white, wheat as well as çve:ta- that t/d is seen here, as in many other words:
        > > >
        > > > speúdo: = hasten, spoudé: = haste G; * speut- > pHoytH = zeal Ar;
        > > >
        > > > kratús = strong G; [*kRadyu>gRadzyu] karcr = hard Ar;
        > > > >
        > > > > I was wrong about the 'whet' root. It is not quasi-Narten but an ordinary ablauting root *k^weh1d- (ON _hva:ta_, etc.), *k^woh1d- (Go. _hwo:ta_, etc.), *k^w&1d- (Lat. _quadrum_, OE _hwaet_, etc.).
        > > > >
        > > > Are you still trying to say quadrum isn't < 4 ?
        > >
        > > Absolutely.
        >
        > There's no good reason for that.
        >
        The good reason has been presented. It makes vastly more sense to connect _quadrum_ with the Gmc. 'whet' group, using the root *k^weh1d- (which excludes some of Pokorny's comparanda).
        > >
        > > > > I believe Lat. _triquetrus_ belongs to a different root *kWet- found also in _cossus_ 'worm', the latter from *kWot-to-. It cannot be from *kWod-to- because Lachmann's Law would have given Lat. *co:ssus, which would have undergone regular post-long degemination to *co:sus, like _caussa_ to _causa_.
        > > > >
        > > > That argument is meaningless since many Latin words show VVC > VCC or the opp., often with what is clearly the older lacking.
        > >
        > > Dialectal V:C > VCC as in _Juppiter_ from the vocative. That is a different phenomenon, but I hardly expect you to be able to comprehend that.
        > >
        > I know exactly what I'm talking about. I didn't mistake it for the change in the alleged problem of *co:ssus > *co:sus , but that if *co:sus ever did exist, which I deny, then *co:sus > cossus could have occurred.

        But it is highly unlikely that *co:sus would not have survived, just as _su:cus_ survived beside _succus_, and (your own example) _cu:pe:do:_ beside _cuppe:do:_.

        > > > bl.àts (anim) = short Khow; bassus = thick/fat/short/low L;
        > >
        > > _bassus_ is from Oscan and had *gW-anlaut.
        > > > >
        > No ev.
        >
        Wrong. The cognomen Bassus is Oscan. Try not to flunk geography.

        > > > > Sean made an important point, though (and I cannot find his post to reply to). 'Wheat' cannot be separated from 'white' and requires Gmc. *xwaitja- from PIE *k^woidjo- (cf. Skt. _s'vindate:_ 'glares, gleams'). Thus Moeller's rule does NOT apply to PIE *k^wo-, and an early stage of PGmc must have contrasted *xWo- with *xwo-.
        > > > >
        > > > So, when I argued against:
        > > >
        > > > > PIE *k(^)woi-dH-to- should give Gmc. *haizda-
        > > >
        > > > you said:
        > > >
        > > > > Whether you like it or not, PIE *kWo(:)- loses its labialization in Germanic
        > > > >
        > > > Since all I did to prove my argument was show evidence against yours, and you're doing the same thing now but in reverse of your first stance, why should anyone accept what you say? What are you doing I didn't in the first place? Anyone who argues against you could just make up a new and dif. root with a dif. shape, just as you tried to many times. What logic led you to disbelieve my ev. for one, then change your mind?
        > > >
        > > I made a mistake and admitted it. If that makes me such a bad guy, why do you bother responding to my posts?
        > >
        > I'd say you're "such a bad guy" because you keep making claims with no evidence, like no -dr- / -tr- alt. (to avoid quadrum < 4, etc.), and acting like the evidence presented for it is somehow unworthy for no reason; you keep making mistakes and act like those who correct you are only making the argument because they're stupid, even if in this one case you came to recognize your mistake.
        >
        You take things too personally. If I thought you were stupid or crazy, I would not bother responding. I do not like erecting optional alternations on such flimsy bases. Yes, I make mistakes, but that should be held against me only if I refuse to accept the corrections.

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