Re[4]: [tied] *kW- "?"

At 1:04:18 on Friday, 16 September 2005, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>>> Nothing but nothing is unmotivated in language development
>>> or in any other historical process.

>> This looks like an article of faith. Certainly it would be
>> difficult to support on any other basis. It isn't even
>> really clear that 'motivated' can be usefully defined. (On
>> this general topic I recommend the discussion in Chapter 7
>> of Roger Lass, Historical Linguistics and Language Change.)

> It is an article of faith for those who respect reality.

> It is certainly clear to me and any objective observer
> what 'motivated' means in this context. Palatalization
> occurs rather regularly before front vowels and /y/ in
> innumerbale languages.

Of course. It is fairly clear that some changes are
likelier than others; that says nothing about whether all
linguistic changes are motivated, or whether (or how) such a
statement is even meaningful. It is also clear that some
changes have no obvious motivation. And anyone who thinks
seriously about what actually constitutes an explanation in
historical linguistics -- and 'this change is motivated by
X' is typically presented as an explanation -- must soon
realize that the question isn't at all simple.

>>> It is supremely important to retain the palatalized
>>> dorsals where we can identify them because they allow us
>>> to know that the pre-PIE vowel in that position was /e/.

>> This is an argument for retaining the distinction between
>> *k^ and *k; it has nothing to do with their phonetic values.

> Then the question is meaningless. If *k^ does not
> represent palatalized /k/ then the matter of markedness
> becomes moot.

Obviously. But your argument for retaining the distinction
has nothing to do with this.

> Are you really suggesting that *k^ does _not_ represent
> palatalized /k/?

People who know far more about the matter than I have
suggested just that. I won't go so far as to say that the
arguments are compelling, but I find them fairly persuasive,
yes.

>>> 'Markedness' is a useless concept. If it had any
>>> legitimacy, Khoisan could not exist with its very "marked"
>>> clicks.

>> This is an absurd straw man.

> Why do you not explain why this is absurd?

I thought it obvious. Markedness is just a way of talking
about a probability distribution. Your claim amounts to
denying the legitimacy of a probability distribution in
which some entities have low but non-zero probability, which
is obviously absurd. Saying that clicks are very marked is
no different in principle from saying that human heights
above 7 feet (~2.13 m) are marked. Your Khoisan statement
has an exact parallel in 'If (height) markedness had any
legitimacy, Zydrunas Ilgauskas (7' 3", 2.21 m) could not
exist'.

Brian