Re: swallow vs. nighingale

> Sorry that I cannot continue with this interesting discussion but
> my free time is very short in these days. Now only few problems,
> nota bene less interesting but with more importance.
>
> >> A short "leap aside", if you please. I perfectly know that
> >> this is a list on IE, not Nostratic, but I only want to show
> >> several examples of irregular development of initial groups
> >> which is the subject here. This irregular development is
> >> documented well in Altaic, and especially in Mongolian. Only
> >> some examples:
>
> >> u ~ 0: Mongolian usu - Turkish su (< sub) "water" (cf. also
> >> Buriat dialectal (so: Mongolian) hub ~ sub "river..."
> >> (adjective))
> >> g ~ 0: Mongolian guc^ "30", gurban "3" - Turkish üç "3"
> >> b ~ 0: Mongolian ulaan "light red" - Russian borrowed (from
> >> unidentified source) bulanyj "light red"
> >> ö ~ 0: Buriat ödör "day" - dialectal dör
> >> ü ~ 0: Buriat üsöön "scarce in number" - Mongolian cöön (the
> >> same) etc.
> >>
> >> There exist much more such examples. Naturally such
> >> disappearings of initial sounds are not regular in any of
> >> cited languages.
>
> > Why 'naturally'?
>
> Dear Torsten, I wrote "naturally" because I think so. And I think
> so because of the knowledge I have. I really hope that you do not
> understand why "naturally", and that your question really was not
> to be provocative. Sorry, I do not like quarrels. We may be of
> different opinions but it does not means that we must provocate
> one another.
>
> Anyway, I would never ask such a question because the situation
> seems to me clear. Obviously not to you.

That's right. That's why I asked you the question and why you didn't
ask yourself the question.

> "Naturally" means that disappearing of initial sounds is not
> regular in Altaic, however they occur in some words.

No it doesn't.
1) 'Naturally' means "naturally", and
2) 'Disappearing of initial sounds is not regular in Altaic, however
they occur in some words' means "disappearing of initial sounds is
not regular in Altaic, however they occur in some words".

The latter statement states as a contingent fact, that disappearing
of initial sounds is not regular in Altaic, however they occur in
some words. But if you add 'naturally' in front of it, you are
saying that this fact is derived from something else, some higher
principle which you don't mention.

> It was a notice for those who have little knowledge on Altaic. If
> disappearing had been regular, I would not have put it as the
> argument. And if anyone else had put such examples as an
> argument, I would have guessed that the examples must illustrate
> some irregular changes. There would not have been another
> possibility unless my opponent had been schizophrenic or he had
> not thought logically.

That's your reason for putting statement 2). I still don't know what
your reason was for preceding it with 1) 'naturally'.

> I would really prefer more concrete questions or counterarguments
> instead of such ambiguous or insinuating questions.

I think you are the one who is being ambiguous and insinuating here.
I ask you a simple question and you get all upset and answer some
other question I didn't ask.

> For example, if you think that disappearing of initial sounds was
> regular in Altaic, give an example instead. Or better give a book
> whose author states that he has found the rules - Altaic
> languages are not part of the IE family, and I really would not
> want to continue this interesting disscussion
> here.

Are you trying to confuse me? You want to discuss it or you don't?

> All I wanted was to show that irregular disappearing of initial
> sounds is present in other languages than IE as well. If no
> examples were known or discussed in the literature, we should
> consider seriously the discussed hypothesis that some birds names
> in some IE languages are borrowings from some substrate.

Obviously at some level you must have sensed that there was a
possibility you chose to ignore, namely that those words in Altaic
with 'irregularly' disappearing initial sounds themselves may have
come from a substrate in which they were regular.

> But as I showed, such examples are known also outside the IE
> family, and the presence of "fleeting a-" cannot be taken as a
> serious argument for such a substrate.

If you had only cited 2), the statement about the supposed irregular
disappearing of initial sounds in Altaic, you would have had nothing
but an analogy, and that is not enough for the conclusion you
wanted, namely that the 'fleeting-a' is a 'regular irregularity' as
that of Altaic. So you put 'naturally' in front of it to make appear
that the statement was derived from something higher than just this
example. You put your thumb on the scale. But I gave you the benefit
of the doubt and asked 'Why 'naturally'?'.

> >> They only happen in some, particular words, and - to tell the
> >> truth - their reason is unknown.


> > Russian bulany is borrowed from an unidentified source
> > (language), and we shouldn't introduce unknown languages? Nice.
>
> I did not think that my English is so bad.

I never mentioned your English.

> But, you obviously do not understand, or, you are trying to
> provocate me. Once again, I do not like it and will not continue
> this way.

Exactly what is it I don't understand?

> First, your notice has nothing to do with the citation you give.

??

> Second, the source of Russian "bulany" is a Mongolian language,
> but we cannot name the source precisely. I hope you know that
> thare are many Mongolian languages.
> In other words; we know that the source was Mongolian, and so it
> is not as unknown as it is for you.
>
> Once again, please stop this game. I do not believe that an
> average educated person would not understand the difference
> between an unknown source (in addition; based on very doubtful
> foundation)

That's your interpretation.

> and unknown language from among a known language family.

Languages die. Some have family, some don't. It is perfectly
permissible to choose that you will recognize the former and not the
latter as donors to the language you investigate. But in order
for the average educated person to understand the distinction
shouldn't one state first that that is what one is doing?

> >> This is not the right place to discuss it in details, and I do
> >> not want to do it.
>
> > This is exactly the place to discuss it, if you want to use it as
> > evidence.
>
> No Torsten, stop teaching me such lessons. It is not the place as
> Altaic languages are not IE.

> Again, you act as if you have not understood my obviously broken
> English.

If I had had a problem with your English, I would have said so.

> And your style of discussion is also not the correct one. Once
> again: you want to discuss, you present counterarguments.

I understand you don't want people to teach you lessons?

> >> And the same I believe that Italian rondine (yes, let's go
> >> back to our IE-an yard) is not borrowed from substrate but
> >> developped irregularly from Latin hirundinem.
>
> > It's a free world. You can choose to believe anything you want.
>
> I stated that I believe that Italian rondine is NOT borrowed from
> substrate but developped irregularly from Latin hirundinem. Your
> arrogant notice about the free world and my beliefs instead of a
> speaking to the point may prove one of two things:
>
> 1) either you believe that Italian rondine IS another word taken
> from the mythical bird substrate language,

That's right.

> 2) or you once again try to irritate me - you share my point of
> view but you chose not to confess it.

That's wrong.

> >> The same reason causes that I cannot just believe that Latin
> >> merula and Gmc. amVsl- are borrowings (which does NOT mean
> >> that I reject such a possibility!).
>
> > You can't believe it, but you won't reject the possibility?
> > This gets mysteriouser and mysteriouser.
>
> We have problems with the square of opposition, are we?

Now I'm having problems with your English.

> I am convinced that a discussion on such a low level simply lacks
> any sense. Telling the truth, I have never supposed that I will
> meet a person with such problems here.

With your English?

> It is really very pity that I must explain such obvious things.

Poor you.

> 1. I can believe that they are borrowings
> = I am sure of it, they certainly are borrowings.
> 2. I cannot believe that they are borrowings
> = I am not sure of it, they may be borrowings or not,
> I do not know.
> 3. I can believe that they are not borrowings
> = I am sure of it, they are not borrowings.
> 4. I cannot believe that they are not borrowings
> = I am not sure of it, they may be borrowings or not,
> I do not know.

Maybe I see some sense here, namely if you are using 'can believe'
for 'believe' and 'can't believe' for 'don't believe'.

> Personally I think that it is a waste of time to discuss with
> somebody who cannot see the difference between 2 and 3.

I would too. Now who is this person, and how is this difference
relevant here?

> It is sad but true. The fact is that Torsten attacked me but all
> what he has managed to prove was that he does not know elementary
> logic.

I am sorry that I couldn't disambiguate your English to discover the
elementary logic behind it.

> I see no sense in continuing with a person whom I must explain
> such elementary and obvious things as that. Once again: I cannot
> just believe that Latin merula and Gmc. amVsl- are borrowings
> means that I do not see evidence for this supposition, nothing
> more and nothing less.

So: You don't believe that X means you see no evidence for X?

> In order to aknowledge that the presence of fleeting a- is a piece
> of evidence for the presence of the bird substrate language, we
> would have to show that:
>
> a) there does not exist a simpler explanation of the observed
> phenomenon,
> b) a similar phenomenon cannot be observed in other instances,
> explained without the need of the substrate.
>
> These are fundaments of science. All the rest is just fantasies,
> not science.

No. If b) is false, ie if a similar phenomenon etc. we are not
forced to give up the hypothesis of a substrate for the fleeting-a
words in PIE.

> And we:
>
> a) know simpler explanations
> (a- may be a result of false division of words,
> a trace of an laryngeal,
> the lack of a- may be a result of irregular development
> which is so common etc.

If it is so common, how come you only cited one example?

> ),

In which way are these explanations simpler that the hypothesis of a
loan from a substrate language?

> b) can show similar examples which have other explanations than a
> loan from unknown substrate (a good example is Italian rondine).
>
> >> >> I see virtually no reason to suppose that "a bird
> >> >> language", a postulated source for many bird names in
> >> >> western Indo-European languages, ever existed.
> >
> >> > Obviously you don't.
> >
> >> No evidence = no reason. Irregularities are no evidence, as
> >> you can see now (I hope).
>
> > Irregularities makes most people
>
> So, will we vote what is true and what is false?

I meant most linguists.

> > prefer the simpler option that the
> > word is a loan,
>
> Nonsense. Such opinion would be simpler if we could show the
> source.

Whether one can identify the source or not is irrelevant to the
question of how to identify the loans in the first place, which
always goes by the same method: look for irregularities in a set of
words and show that they are actually regularities within that set.

> We could not show the source for Italian rondine (if it would a
> borrowing)

We?

> and this is why we

We?

> accept is as an example of an irregularity, contrary to what
> Torsten tells.

This must be the exclusive we? I'm suddenly third person, your
majesty?

> There is no reason not to accept that also merula and other
> examples are not borrowings.

You see no reason = There is no reason ?

> This is what we call analogy.
>
> Sorry you do not understand it. Sorry you do not like to use it.
> Sorry that your way of thinking has nothing to do with science so.

No you're not. Smoke is coming out your ears.

> >> >> Of course it might have existed - but we could not prove it
> >> >> then. The observed irregularities are too weak evidence,
> >
> >> > But you just ruled out the irregularities as evidence by
> >> > claiming they were caused by something else? How can you
> >> > then consider using them as evidence?
> >
> >> They are not evidence. Exactly! Irregularities are not
> >> evidence, so only because of their presence no one should
> >> believe in borrowings from substrate.
>
> > Do you ever read what you write? Hello-o?
>
> Enough of your insolence. Is such a style of discussion normal in
> your country?

There are people in my country who use the same style of discussion
as you.

> Sorry, I come from a more cultural place.


> > Are they weak evidence (thus evidence) or no evidence?
>
> TOO WEAK EVIDENCE means NO EVIDENCE, and it does not mean EVIDENCE.

Aha.
And TOO WEAK COFFEE means NO COFFEE, and it does not mean COFFEE?
And you come from the place of L\ukasiewicz and Alfred Tarski?

> You are not able to distinguish between "week evidence" and "too
> weak evidence".

What??

> I see no sense to continue. End of discussion with you. And a
> good advice: stop cavilling at people, make a break with
> linguistics and learn some logic first. And some rules of
> discussion.

Maybe it would help if you wrote down your rules of logic so I can
use them to discuss with you?

> >> No evidence that a thing exists does not mean evidence that this
> >> thing does not exist. I thought it is obvious for everyone.
> >> And you, are not you convinced?
>
> > Why makes you think I would doubt that triviality?
>
> You really don't know? Here is what makes me think so: your
> question "You can't believe it, but you won't reject the
> possibility?".

It's not my fault that you are using 'can't believe' for 'believe'.
Don't try to wipe it off on me.

> I can't believe = I see no evidence that a thing exists. The
> triviality is that it does not mean evidence that this thing does
> not exist, just as Torsten said. It does not mean evidence that
> this thing does not exist, that is why I won't reject it.

'Why makes you think I would doubt that triviality' means "I already
understand that triviality". Why does Grzegorz then keep harping on
about something else?

> Torsten terms it triviality, and it does not stop him to ask me
> such stupid questions...

What kind of place was it you said you were coming from, again?

> And the final problem: what for has Torsten done all this
> unnecessary quarrel? For satisfaction to convince my arguments?
> Has he really been succeeded?

If you would rephrase these questions in English I might be able to
answer them?


Torsten