Simple question for Helge (and Mach)
- Since Helge seems not to have noticed it, I want to set forth these
simple questions again in plain sight.
In his article on "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System"
(<http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm>), Helge writes:
"By this system we would have [past-tense] forms like *ebid "spoke"
(ped- "speak"), *ewidh "bound" (gwed[h]- "bind"), *idir "watched" (tir-
"watch"), and *onur "ran" (nor- "run")."
Note the short vowels in each form.
To this, Helge has now appended a note that begins:
"NOTE: Carl F. Hostetter argues that the final vowel should remain long
in the Sindarin words, since it was long at an older stage (e.g. *onúr
rather than *onur, because the older form would be *onôr-)."
As anyone can plainly see from what I actually wrote
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/2794>), and as I have
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/510>), this is a
complete misrepresentation of my words and position. I argued only that
original long vowels _might_ remain long _in stressed position_; I said
precisely _nothing_ about them remaining long in _unstressed_ position,
such as in the
1) Do you still maintain that your statement, quoted above, is factual?
2) If so, can you please show us where I ever made such an argument?
3) If not, will you correct your misrepresentation?
4) If you will not correct it, why not?
1) Having read the sources, do you find Helge's statement to be factual?
2) If so, can you please show us where I ever made such an argument?
3) If not, do you find it acceptable for Helge to attribute absurd
positions to me and then to leave them uncorrected when his
misrepresentations have been pointed out?
4) If so, why?
5) If not, then why are you defending Helge's practice of doing such
(instead of arguing against it, or at least remaining silent)?
I await your answers.
- Until recently, one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter
thinks older *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense "watched"
would produce Noldorin/Sindarin *_idír_ rather than *_idir_. CFH himself
> this is a complete misrepresentation of my words and position. I arguedonly that original long vowels _might_ remain long _in stressed position_;
I said precisely _nothing_ about them remaining long in _unstressed_
position, such as in the
As we understand, somebody hit the SEND button a little prematurely here,
but CFH's point is still reasonably clear, especially in the light of other
posts of his.
It is hardly entirely correct that he said "precisely _nothing_" about
vowels in unstressed position. Rather he said he thought the vowel would be
_especially_ likely to remain long in stressed position, with the seeming
implication that he thinks it could very well remain long even when
When I wrote that I thought we would see *_idir_ rather than *_idír_, and
he in direct response to this states: "I see no reason why the vowel would
not remain long", then it does sound to me as if he is arguing FOR *_idír_
and AGAINST _idir_. If I misunderstood him and he only meant we would see
_idír-_ before some ending, then he was really begging to be misunderstood.
Rather than making a circus about this, as if I were deliberately
misrepresenting him to make him look stupid, it would be far better if he
could say: "I'm sorry, it seems that in the heat of the argument I didn't
express myself adequately. Please allow me to clarify this..."
Very well, let's just be happy that some sort of clarification did
materialize after all. CFH now claims he meant that the older long vowel
would remain long in the _penultimate_ syllable of suffixed forms, where a
long vowel would attract the stress. Unfortunately, there is _still_ little
evidence to support such a view, and good reasons to doubt it. With more
recent compounds as the main exception, the general tendency is to shorten
long vowels in polysyllabic words. For examples, check out the Revised Note
in my article:
(Search for "Hostetter argues that before"...)
- On Nov 10, 2003, at 6:15 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> Until recently,I.e., until _today_, after weeks and weeks of evasion...
> one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter thinks olderAnd the same page in fact _still_ claims that I argued this, which I
> *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense "watched" would
> produce Noldorin/Sindarin *_idír_ rather than *_idir_.
never did. Helge has merely displaced his false, unevidenced assertion
further down in his now longer note, and replaced it with a different
set of false assertions (such as, that I "dismiss" agorech, or argued
that the stem vowel would be different in "some cases" -- in fact, I
merely pointed out that _if the sole example of past-tense formation
exhibited by _agor_ < *_akâra_ is to be applied to other verbs_, then
the _whole_ pattern needs to be applied, and not set aside silently as
Helge does; and the pattern exhibited by *_akâra_ _includes_ an
extended base with suffixed _sundóma_.
> Rather than making a circus about this, as if I were deliberatelyI expressed myself with perfect adequacy, and far more precisely than
> misrepresenting him to make him look stupid, it would be far better if
> he could say: "I'm sorry, it seems that in the heat of the argument I
> didn't express myself adequately. Please allow me to clarify this..."
you bothered to notice in your zeal to attempt to discredit one that
you view as your "opponent" (which is at least 95% of your problem as a
"scholar": that you view it as a combative sport). No clarification was
necessary beyond that provided by simply reading my words with the care
and thoughtfulness due to -- and from -- any scholar.
I reject Helge's continued falsifications of my words and of the
evidence, and I deplore his unwillingness to discuss these issues in an
open forum so that the truth can be reached and so that he can come to
understand my arguments and the evidence before he falsely attributes
claims and positions to me.
And I say again to all readers of Helge's work: do not accept
_anything_ he says as true, unless you can verify it independently.
This is true even when Helge cites evidence (as he has a disturbing
tendency to quote out of context), and _especially_ when, as
frequently, he cites no evidence at all. His failure to quote any words
of mine supporting his misrepresentations of my claims should alert any
considerate reader that things are not as he wants you to believe they
- Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
> I expressed myself with perfect adequacy,You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to
*communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two.
"Kill Gorg)Bûn! Kill orc-folk! John Cowan
No other words please Wild Men. jcowan@...
Drive away bad air and darkness http://www.reutershealth.com
with bright iron!" --Gh)Bân-buri-Ghân http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
- The fact that _Helge_ misunderstood my words (if in fact he did),
because he couldn't be bothered to read them with any care, does _not_
mean that I failed to "communicate"; only that he failed to understand
what I wrote.
It also takes two for a mugging to occur; that doesn't mean the muggee
is at fault. Don't pin Helge's failure on me.
On Nov 10, 2003, at 9:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
>> I expressed myself with perfect adequacy,
> You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to
> *communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two.