From: Torsten
Message: 65411
Date: 2009-11-12
>Mnja, I was trying to define in more rigorous terms what Schrijver, Kuhn and others are doing when they set up a substrate for a set of languages.
> > since words are assigned to a substrate by definition, you can't
> > disprove their membership.
> >
> > What should be disprovable is the actual existence of this
> > artificially defined substrate.
>
> So by "assigned to substrate" you mean nothing more than "has a
> specific phonetic shape", then.
> I think *that* may be our problem here.I don't have a problem and I don't know what yours is.
> What "assigned to substrate" usually means is the much strongerTrue.
> claim of "is a loan from some extinct language"
> - a claim that needs some actual evidence for it.No. 'Evidence for' doesn't exist.
> And having some phonetical shape is not sufficient evidence, ifSee above.
> said phonetical shape is also possible in vocabulary deriving from
> other sorces.
> Furthermore: if we have to disproov the existence of the substrateI'll have to disown that claim, I am interpreting the deeds of others.
> (or, "the substrate being an actual language", using the Torsten
> definition of "substrate")
> as a whole, that leaves no room for one word of similar shape to beNot true, there's plenty of space for alternative theories.
> a loan from an extinct language and another of similar shape to
> have a different origin.
> This model is fundamentally flaw'd, since words of similar shapeNo it's not, it just has competition.
> CAN occur without them having a common origin.
> > > Would you mean that having cognates in related languages countsNo.
> > > as counterevidence of being a loan?
> >
> > Counterevidence of it being a loan to that language at that
> > particular time, yes.
>
> Can we then agree that *kunta, *kënta and *kan-ta are all distinct
> and inherited from Proto-Uralic?
> > > > > > Forget predictive power in a historical science. AnyThat was no strawman. I meant you.
> > > > > > prediction a theory makes we already know, unless we
> > > > > > discover new material like Hittite, and that's very rare.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe with Indo-European. There are still plenty of
> > > > > understudied languages in the world which may or may not
> > > > > provide us with data that fits our reconstruction of, say,
> > > > > Proto-Uralic.
> > > >
> > > > True, but it's pseudo-prediction in principle.
> > >
> > > We can predict the *discovery* of new lexeme sets that fit our
> > > soundlaws, if you want to nitpick about chronology.
> >
> > OK, sage, predict the appearance of the next Hittite.
>
> Nice strawman.
> Read again what I wrote, please.I just did, and it still doesn't make sense.
> More rigorously:Yes, please.
> a linguistic reconstruction (or just the relevantThat's a definition. But exactly those lexemes may have been dropped from the languages in question, in which case your prediction fails when it shouldn't. So: fail.
> regular correspondences, actually) predicts that, when scholars
> further study a language of the same family that has not been
> studied to full detail (but still to sufficient detail that
> soundlaws for that particular language have been estabilish'd),
> they will discover lexemes that can be connected to lexemes in
> other languages of the family in accordance with the soundlaws of
> the reconstruction.
> > > > We have to come up with some criterion for the historicHow do you yourself feel you're doing?
> > > > sciences which doesn't involve prediction.
> > >
> > > I hear regularity of sound change works pretty well.
> > >
> > It does, but it's not prediction.
>
> And you just said we need to come up with a criterion that doesn't
> involve prediction. I just can't win here, can I?
>No, only that they improved the technology and so decided to give it a new name.
> > > > > > > "tree stump" is the kind of concept even stone-age
> > > > > > > hunter gatherers can be expected to have in their
> > > > > > > vocabulary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But they can't be expected not to replace by a new word
> > > > > > from some prestigious new technology.
>
> > > The Samic reflex means "roots". No association with hunting
> > > storages - which they still use (eg. http://tinyurl.com/yjfmtak)
> >
> > So the technology came to the Saami after it had ceased being
> > associated with a tree stump. Why is that a problem?
>
> Because you have no evidence that the hunting storage is that new a
> technology for the Sami, and because you now require the completely
> unnecessary assumption that some ancestors of the Sami stopped
> using hunting storages for a while, until it was reintroduced for
> them later.
> It is much simpler to assume that "hunting storage" is a semanticNot than assuming it is a semantic innovation in Saamic for an old technology.
> innovation in Ob-Ugric for an old technology.
> Especially since you have not even attempted to identify yourI don't have to. BTW what do you think of Old Japanese *kati "side" (this might interest Douglas)?
> mysterious hunting-storage-introductors.
> > > You keep talking about "prestigious new technology" without anyI was trying to avoid the inference that you were.
> > > evidence of who, where, and when. Until you have, it remains an
> > > assumption.
> >
> > It remains an assumption that it was once new?
>
> Are you playing dumb?
> Everything was once new, but you're making assumptions about theI don't think I've done that.
> date of origin of this technology with regards to the dates of
> Proto-Uralic or Proto-Samic. You can't date things to any arbitrary
> date you'd like without evidence.
> > It is sometimes difficult for me to understand the way you think.I have several theories that necessitates assuming that my opponents are at least half of the time either immune to logic, or trolling, but I try to replace them with theories that assume they are trying to act rationally.
>
> Likewise, except close to 100% of the time.
> (I do have one pretty good theory, but it requires assuming that
> you're at least half of the time either immune to logic, or
> trolling.)