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

Simple question for Helge (and Mach)

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    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
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 6, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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/2783> and
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/2794>), and as I have
      detailed elsewhere
      (<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

      Questions:
      ---------

      For Helge:
      ---------

      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?

      For Mach:
      --------

      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.
    • Helge K. Fauskanger
      Until recently, one article on my pages implied that Carl F. Hostetter thinks older *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense watched would
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 10, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        writes:

        > 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

        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
        unstressed.

        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:

        http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm

        (Search for "Hostetter argues that before"...)

        - HKF
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        ... I.e., until _today_, after weeks and weeks of evasion... ... And the same page in fact _still_ claims that I argued this, which I never did. Helge has
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 10, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          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 older
          > *_itîr-_ as a possible (though unlikely) past tense "watched" would
          > produce Noldorin/Sindarin *_idír_ rather than *_idir_.

          And the same page in fact _still_ claims that I argued this, which I
          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 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..."

          I expressed myself with perfect adequacy, and far more precisely than
          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
          are.
        • John Cowan
          ... You may have *expressed* yourself, but you obviously failed to *communicate*, since that (like the tango) takes at least two. -- Kill Gorg)Bûn! Kill
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 10, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            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
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            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
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 10, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              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.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.