Re: Re[4]: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian M. Scott

To: Patrick Ryan

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:57 PM

Subject: Re[4]: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

 

<snip>

 
>   ***
>   Patrick wrote:

<snip>

>   Any given *CVC is 76/19ths more likely to be a root
> aorist than a root present; i.e. 400%.

Brian:
And any given verbal root is 600/130 times as likely to be a
root aorist as to be a root present (on the basis of the
figures available here); that's a little over 460%.  In
short, the probability that a given verbal root is a root
aorist goes *down* slightly if we know that it's a *CVC
root: the probability that a root chosen at random from the
730 verbal roots under consideration is 600/730, or about
82%; the probability that a root chosen at random from the
95 *CVC roots is a root aorist is 76/95, or 80%.

***

Patrick writes:

 

Do you not mean:

 

"the probability that a root chosen at random from the 730 verbal roots under consideration (added) IS A ROOT AORIST is 600/730, or about 82%;

???

***

 

>   If one ignored the *CVC requirement, any given "root"
> is 600/130 more likely to be a root aorist than a root
> present; i.e. 461%.

>   You say that I fail to take into account that there
> are far more root aorists. That was the point! Have you
> been unable to follow the discussion?

>   You are confused by the *CVC-factor.

On the contrary.  If you understood the numbers, you'd
realize that they say nothing about *CVC roots as a
category.

***

Patrick writes:

 

 

Now, I must say "Nonsense".

 

What the numbers say about *CVC roots is that, if all roots counted by Jens are (730), and (95) are *CVC, then (95/730=) 13% of all roots are *CVC.

 

Do the numbers not say that about *CVC roots? Is that "nothing"?

***

 

<snip>

I got it the first time -- as would be obvious if you'd
understood my comment (and the relevant mathematics) in the
first place.  *Any* verbal root is more likely to be a root
aorist.  This is no more true of *CVC roots than of verbal
roots in general -- indeed, very slightly *less* true.

If you merely wish to make the point that root aorists are
more common than root presents, fine, but don't pretend that
this has anything to do with *CVC roots in particular.

Brian

***

Patrick writes:

 

I have not pretended anything.

 

If you choose not to understand that the question under immediate discussion here was whether root aorists were primary or not, then the onus is on you.

 

Patrick

***