Re[6]: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

At 9:54:19 PM on Thursday, May 11, 2006, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott

[...]

>> I *have* asserted, and in my own name at that, that this
>> is the case for a hypothetical common ancestor of all
>> known human languages. I very much doubt that any
>> competent linguist would disagree. Indeed, I rather
>> suspect that most share my view that anyone who thinks
>> otherwise is, er, untutored, highly eccentric, or both.

> "Most" shared the view that the world was flat at one
> time. The herd-mentality you idolize does not work well
> for lemmings.

It would appear that your picture of lemming behavior owes
more to the Disney movie than to the facts of the matter:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming>
<http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm>

Your picture of me owes more to personal animus than to the
facts of the matter, but I can't do much about that.

> You obviously mean to insinuate (or perhaps, assert)
> that I am untutored and highly eccentric.

Wrong connective: 'or', not 'and'.

> Is that what _tutored_ people do, argumenta ad hominem?

It isn't one.

The idea that traces of the hypothetical common ancestor of
all known human languages can be identified does not
withstand even moderately informed scrutiny. (The reasons
needn't be rehearsed yet again: you've heard them often
enough.) It follows that anyone who espouses it either
lacks some pretty basic background knowledge or has it but
is for some reason unwilling or unable to make use of it.

Mutatis mutandis the same can be said of those who believe
that we live on the inside of a hollow earth, that the moon
landings were faked, that the years from 614 to 911 CE never
really existed, or any of scores of other such notions.

>>>>> Nostratic has been proved.

>>>> Pull the other one; it has bells on.

>>> Well, if you are so certain, why not offer a little
>>> proof?

>> The existence of a substantial number of knowledgeable
>> skeptics is proof that N. hasn't 'been proved'.

> Only when objectivity has been assured.

It can't be; one merely hopes that most people will make an
honest effort to judge objectively. (And I seriously
question the objectivity of someone who appears to think
that 'judges objectively' means 'agrees with me'.)

>> And if you're talking about the actual linguistics
>> itself, the burden of proof lies with those who wish to
>> maintain one of the various Nostratic hypotheses, not
>> with the skeptics.

> The burden of proof has been carried by Nostraticists like
> Bomhard, for example, whose work you reject without
> addressing its arguments with anything but your
> prejudices.

I do not believe that I have ever expressed an opinion of
Bomhard's work.

[...]

>> I wasn't making a case; Piotr had already demolished
>> Ballester, making the points that I would have made and a
>> couple more besides.

> Utter ridiculous!!!

Precisely my reaction to the two sentences that I quoted
from Ballester.

[...]

>> The reasons [for linguistic change] are not relevant to
>> the point that I was making. Even if we knew absolutely
>> nothing about the mechanisms of language change, which is
>> not in fact the case, you would still be stuck with the
>> empirical observation that linguistic change is the norm.

> How so very typical of Brian, whose positions need neither
> arguments nor proof - provided only Brian hold them.

I see no reason to offer detailed support for something that
every historical linguist knows, namely, that '[e]very
language and every dialect within a language is always in a
process of change' (R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of
Languages, §5.2).

Brian