Re: Volcae and Volsci

At 5:24:16 AM on Wednesday, April 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 5:50:05 AM on Sunday, March 30, 2008, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:

>>>> At 2:26:46 PM on Saturday, March 29, 2008, tgpedersen
>>>> wrote:

>> [...]

>>>>> No, what you want to do is present an example which
>>>>> can't have been caused by a substrate.

>>>> In your world I doubt that there is such a thing. Even
>>>> in my world it would, I think, be very difficult to
>>>> find such a thing. That's why your extreme reliance on
>>>> substrates, like your reliance on invisible
>>>> underclasses, is methodologically unsound.

>>> I always relate underclasses to to substrates and
>>> therefore to previous conquests

>> I know. Since you don't otherwise appear to lack
>> imagination, overcommitment to a theory seems the
>> likeliest explanation of this reflex.

> I relate underclass (or upperclass) to substrate because
> 1) it reduces the number of variables in the claim,

Postulating two shadowy entities and a relationship between
them reduces the number of variables?

> 2) it adds a falsifiable claim to a proposal of a substrate

In practice it doesn't: in practice you're very willing to
postulate an invisible underclass and motivations for which
there's no evidence at all, as in the discussion of the
Caxton 'eggs' story.

> 3) it's good practice; most people who propose substrates
> do that

For what it's worth, that has not been my experience.

[...]

>> In other cases it's downright ludicrous, like your
>> 'gradually germanized originally NWBlock speaking
>> underclass' that finally shows up in 17th century
>> English.

> All the Germanic languages, with the exception of High
> German and Icelandic have been heavily creolized,

No. And until you learn what 'creolized' means, I can't
even be bothered to read the rest.

[...]

> No, your objection was that any claim that a substrate is
> present is unfalsifiable.

It was not.

Brian