Re: dive (was Re: Sos-)

At 11:36:04 AM on Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Torsten wrote:

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

>> At 3:32:08 AM on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Torsten wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@>
>>> wrote:

>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@ wrote:

>>>> [...]

>>>>>> The -k set is limited to "suck", and the -mp set is
>>>>>> limited to "swamp". There's no overlap between these
>>>>>> and I see no grounds to connect them.

>>>>> My grounds for combining the 'labial series' and the
>>>>> 'velar series' is that I claim the root they descend
>>>>> from is from the combined ar-/ur- and geminate language,
>>>>> and both the ar-/ur- language and the geminate language,
>>>>> according to their respective authors, have labial/velar
>>>>> alternation in auslaut.

>>>> You've not answered the objection.

>>> Yes, I have.
>>> Schrijver:
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62677

[...]

>>> Kuhn mentions
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62578

[...]

>>> see also his discussion in
>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62531

>> You've still not answered it. None of this says anything
>> about the 'swamp' set.

> I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you be so
> kind as to specify what you mean by your terms '-k set',
> '-mp set' and 'swamp set', then I'll see if I can answer
> your criticism?

If it isn't obvious, your situation is indeed hopeless. You
have, however, persuaded me that you really don't see the
clear semantic distinction between the two sets.

>>>> That labial/velar alternation is irrelevant if there's
>>>> no good reason to combine the sets in the first place,

>>> The people who connected them in the first place are
>>> Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver, from whom I've taken it
>>> over.

>> You've signally failed to demonstrate this.

> I've failed to demonstrate that Kuhn, Kuiper and Schrijver
> connected the words with labial with those with velar
> auslaut? Or what?

You've failed to demonstrate that K, K, and S connected the
words that you want to connect. Are you unable to
distinguish the general principle from the specific
application?

>>>> and the clear semantic distinction between the
>>>> two sets is hardly a reason to combine them.

>>> There isn't any 'clear semantic distinction'. Kuhn,
>>> Kuiper and Schrijver did not see it, nor do I.

>> So you're blind. I reserve judgement on them, since we
>> have as yet no evidence that they agree with you.

> But when your staff comes back with sufficient evidence,
> you wíll pass judgment on them? You are a strange little
> man.

I have no intention of looking: you're the one making the
claim that they combine these various squishy s- words.

>> [...]

>>>>>> I keep seeing this apparent principle "if they have
>>>>>> some resemblance, it cannot be a coincidence" behind
>>>>>> your (and some others') reasoning, but this is a
>>>>>> false conviction.

>>>>> That conviction of yours is false.

>>>> Not really: it *is* the way you operate in fact,
>>>> whatever you may claim in theory.

>>> I think I know better than both of you how I reason.

>> Of course you think so. That has no bearing on the facts.

> Okay, so what I think my own attitude towards my proposals
> is illusionary, whereas your what you think of it is fact?
> Where do you get these insights into my thought processes
> that are denied to me?

I don't care what your thought processes are: I'm talking
about your actual behavior.

Brian