S.M. wrote:
>>I don't mean to sound impatient, but it would save you and everyone
else a
>>lot of trouble if you'd simply read a few introductory works on
historical
>>inguistics before you tried to critique the field. You're in the
position
>>of someone who has no calculus trying to offer alternatives to
General
>>Relativity.
>>You don't have the knowledge-base to _understand_ the theories you're
>>criticizing.
Others wrote various responses:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
I write:
Wow - a lot went on overnight, I am sad that the turn of events have
become strained, and its apparent that I was the trigger for it.
First to S.M. Sterling
I promised I would respect your having the last word on the subject of
loan words etc, and its obvious that this was the last word.
I have to say thank you for the information you provided. I REALLY do
appreciate your patient and long responses to my questions.-As I said
several times it was generous on your part. While I don't agree with
part of your statement, the point I could have saved time had I been an
informed person is certainly valid. If you or anyone else has
suggestions on some good basic books or Web sites concerning
linguistics I would appreciate knowing of them (I am afraid they would
have to be in English). Actually I had been thinking of asking the
site for that information anyway. But besides not being well informed
on linguistics, I am not well informed on Indo-European studies either,
and I just started reading Mallory's -In Search of the Indo-Europeans-
so I wouldn't be so poorly informed there. With real life demands of
time it is going to be quite a while before I get to them.
I am sorry that you see my questions as criticism directed at
linguistics. Actually I have been developing a deep respect for the
area's accomplishments. It was never my intent to get into a debate on
methodology when I asked the question. I really was curious but I DO
acknowledge I let myself get caught up in following the situational
logic trying to sort it out. For that, I will take the blame and
promise to try to avoid letting myself getting carried in that
direction in the future.
As to the specific manner in which you expressed yourself. It could
have been done with more civility. I don't fault you feeling or even
the thoughts behind them but in expressing yourself as you did, you
put yourself in the position of an authoritative bully picking on an
acknowledged-poorly-informed weakling. (Actually in your previous two
postings I sensed your growing frustration and deliberately provided
you a way to gracefully shut it off. It's unfortunate that it didn't
work out that way). The result is that other board members felt
compelled to come to my defense, and the consequential strain.
I am very sad about this, because you kindly gave of your knowledge in
providing the detailed information. I can only continue to express my
gratitude for this. And it would be a great shame if you came away
from this feeling you got burnt for the effort. You obviously are one
of the valuable resources of the site and have much to offer to it.
Please accept my apologies for the part I played in the turn of events.
To others in Group:
I appreciate comments offered in my defense, but as I indicated above,
I feel I am not entirely free of blame. It was unintentional - but
nonetheless real.
And its apparent SM has brought up an issue that the group may want to
discuss. Not, as he implies that the site should be the exclusive
domain of professional linguists. I say this, because I surveyed the
site after SM previous posting to see if Cyril had incorrectly directed
me to site composed of professional linguists. From the first 100
postings, it's obvious that the group has a large number of interested
amateurs. Maybe not as ill informed as myself, but certainly not the
exclusive domain of well established scholars. So it seems appropriate
that the site continues to allow the intrusion of amateurs. Especially
since Cyril is directing them here as in my own case.
But I also understand S.M.'s frustration. He wants a way for open
discussion among accomplished linguists. At the same time the site
can, and from what I can see of the membership should encourage the
interest of amateurs and provide information to them so that they too
can advance. After all the free flow of information is what the Web is
all about. (Besides in answering the questions of novices in my own
field I often find I am forced to refine my own concepts, learn little
bits and pieces here and there and are stimulated into new ways of
perceiving what I thought I understood. I will often seek out someone
with a "fresh eye" just to get that perspective. So amateurs can offer
a lot to the site.) There seems to be a need for finding away to
accommodate both, if that is possible.
It seems appropriate that the group decide how to best accomplish this.
I have two suggestions that may be useful, for those like myself who
want to improve themselves:
One of the solutions might be a list of resources, at Cyril's site of
Linguistic and Indo-European or related sites and books.
Also a collection and cataloguing of discussion threads might be
helpful. When SM and Piotr were providing the detailed responses I kept
thinking that they should be collected somehow so that other amateurs
that wander to the site later can refer to them and this process would
not have to be repeated.
Despite all the strain, I found the discussions with SM very
informative. I hope this person will continue to offer as generously
of the themselves in the future, to others.
With deepest respect, to SM and the group
Brent