Re: Metathesis - The armchair linguist's favourite tool

--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
> Torsten:
> >I wonder how you discovered my cleverly disguised intention of
> >uniting the wet *w-'s. [...] Anyway, the reason was that Møller

posits for

> >*u:r- etc a root approx. *w-H-r-, and since he occasionly
> >lets H's (laryngeals) wander in and out of roots by means of
>metathesis, a
> >term I find employed often in the Hamito-Semitic
> >Encyclopedic Dictionary by Orël & Stolbova [...]
>
> The term "metathesis" is employed prolifically in long-range
> comparative linguistic materials because it is one of the best tools
> for the hopelessly uneducated or for the tragically dyslogical to
> link any word with any other word without having to go through the
> pain of proper thought or research. Starostin uses it for almost
> every one of his "North Caucasian" reconstructions in the hopes that
> no one will notice (and many don't because they don't focus enough
> to pay attention to detail - must be something in the water

nowdays).

>
> All this doesn't get to the heart of the truth at all, but perhaps

the

> results are interesting to conlangers trying to make new exotic
> languages for science-fiction novels and movies. I believe there is

another

> list for conlangers somewhere.
>
> Torsten, you've been trying to sell your Møller-based theory on the
> Nostratic list but you can't get around the fact that this is just
> mass-comparison combined with what I like to call "mathematical
> linguistics", a branch of linguistics involving the mathematization
> of human language to the point of absurdity to reap whatever strange
> satisfaction one can find out of such a fantasy-oriented hobby.
>
> Of course, there's no reason to presume a metathesis in *wed-

because

> of Uralic *wete and other external links made by other Nostraticists
> that don't demonstrate the initial *H1, let alone the lack of

evidence

> *within* IE for the initial phoneme in this and other *w- words (as
> Piotr mentioned). Your theory is very, very weak for many
> reasons - unacceptable methodology, unintuitive, and based on

outdated

> and/or contraversial materials.
>
> - gLeN
>
>

That's all very interesting. What I would like to know, does anyone
know how likely metathesis involving laryngeals is to occur (based on
fact, please)?
And does anyone have a working definition of "mass comparison" (as
opposed to?)?

Torsten