"glen gordon" <
glengordon0-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=1953
Dear Glen,
Look what we've done. There have been breaches of Netiquette and ad
hominem remarks on both sides, so maybe it's time to take a step back,
call it quits and start talking again. For my part, I regret saying
anything uncivil.
> References to the "old school", while entertaining for comic relief,
are no
> substitute for a logical debate. If you would only explain overtly
what
> constitutes proof of convincing linguistic relationship regarding IE
> according to you.
As in science in general, there is no single criterion of validity for
a new theory. Cases regarded as convincing typically involve a variety
of arguments converging on a central conclusion. Linguistic
relationship becomes obvious when:
(1) A consistent reconstruction of the phonological system and
structure is offered, with correspondence rules which not only relate
the initially compared pairs of alleged cognates but allow you to
detect further such pairs, previously unsuspected of being related.
This is the closest that we can get to empirical testing.
(2) The morphological system of the protolanguage is reconstructed,
with the same logical feedback as above. With (1) and (2) done, it
becomes possible to apply internal reconstruction to the protolanguage
itself just to make sure that "tout se tient" (with a bit of luck you
may even discover new patterns in this way, like the laryngeal theory,
make new predictions and verify them again to strengthen your case).
(3) I wouldn't accept explaining the obscure with the more obscure.
This is especially important with distant relationship, where the
well-known pitfalls of mass comparison lurk all around you. If you want
to demonstrate Indo-Uralic relationship, proceed stepwise and don't
bring in Sumerian, Dravidian or Semitic until your IU reconstruction is
solid enough to convince somebody else than yourself.
> The Semitic origin remains the best explanation for roots *es-,
*weid- and
> *leikW- since there are Semitic counterparts without evidence closer
to home
> and, concerning the last two, they do not conform to general rules of
sound
> change to explain IE-Uralic correspondances that work for most other
words
> and grammatical particles. The verbs *ghWen- and *ed- may or may not
be
> Semitic, I will grant you this possibility.
See (3) above. Most people will say that if IE patterns don't conform
to your expectations concerning Indo-Uralic, the problem must be with
Indo-Uralic rather than the more safely established Indo-European
patterns. Your lumping together so much uncomfortable material as
"Semitic" looks like sweeping it all under the carpet.
> In Germanic, ablaut is the "regular pattern" and so I would correctly
have
> rendered /to render/ as foreign but /to lie/ as native. In IE, the
thematic
> is the "regular pattern", a conclusion you are unable to refute.
Thus, the
> athematic verbs must be explained (and they just happen to have
Semitic
> counterparts in both form and meaning).
Wrong. The regular pattern in historically attested Germanic is that of
weak verbs like "love : loved". The ablauting strong verbs were a
non-productive, dying-out category already in Gothic, Old English and
Old High German. French loans followed the productive English pattern.
As you observed yourself in an earlier posting, French conjugations
were not borrowed together with French verbs. It's typically the case
that the most regular pattern is, historically, a relatively recent
innovation, whike minor, irregular paradigms consist of historical
"fossils" (mouse : mice, etc.). I don't see a reason for a different
interpretation of PIE grammar.
One more thing. Just out of curiosity: where do you find reflexes of
the "reconstructed" verb *pelh-? I mean the "underived form", of course.
Piotr