Re: Stacking up on standard works

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 69344
Date: 2012-04-16

No one ever said Trask was infallible, least of all him. I disagreed with him over what I saw as loanwords to and from Celtic and possibly the ancestor of Lusitanian (some non-Celtic IE language). But he held out for the best possible evidence. If those of you who slight Trask or have never read him did the same, you'd enjoy the respect of everyone on the list.


From: Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>
To: Tavi <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Stacking up on standard works

 
At 4:18:42 AM on Monday, April 16, 2012, Tavi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>> Early Romance and Vulgar Latin are virtually the same
>> thing and when Trask says Latin, he does not mean
>> Cicero's Latin.

> When somebody says "Latin" and/or uses capital letters (an
> old-fashioned custom) he/she's implicitly meaning
> "Classical Latin", otherwise he/she would say "Vulgar
> Latin", "Late Latin", etc.

Unless, of course, the distinction is irrelevant or readily
understood from context.

> Also an asterisk is used before forms unattested in Latin.
> So when Trask (who was a professional linguist) writes Lat
> RATONE or Lat. rato:ne(m) he's *explictly* meaning this is
> an attested Latin word, something which is utterly false.

On the contrary, <rato, raton-> is well-attested in
post-classical Latin.