Re: Volcae and Volsci

At 4:47:40 AM on Sunday, April 6, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

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

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

[...]

>>> 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?

> Postulating an identity (actually a historical continuity)
> between two entities you already postulated reduces the
> number of postulaed entities from two to one.

At the cost of an additional assumption, so there's no net
reduction.

>>> 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

>> [...]

>> Nd motivations for which there's no evidence at all, as
>> in the discussion of the Caxton 'eggs' story.

> Erh, what? I'll think you'll have to go into more detail
> here. I postulated motivations in the Caxton dialog, you
> postulated motivations in the Caxton dialog, what is it
> about the fact that I disagree with you that upsets you
> so?

('Upset' is inaccurate, but never mind.) I simply read
what's there, though it probably helped that I know more
about the history of English (and probably more about the
social history of medieval and Early Modern England, for
that matter). You postulated motivations for which the
story itself offers no evidence, based on hypotheses about
the society for which there is no evidence -- rather the
reverse, in fact.

[...]

>>> 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.

> I think I know what 'creolized' means.

Since you continue to misuse the term to apply to a wide
range of contact effects, it would appear that you do not.

Brian