From: "Glen Gordon" <
glengordon01@...>
> I think I understand beyond his poetic whims what Stefan
> is getting at.
Thanks, gLeN. This is a welcome and refreshing change from sending
me back to the Primer for Beginner PIE-makers :-)
> I think the topic I started up earlier
> regarding the reconstructed deity *PerkWnos, the storm god, and my
interest in a possible _original_ form of the name
> before mythological poetry by IE speakers led to *PerkWnos would
give him pleasure.
Yes it did. . I did not take part in discussion though I noted with
some surprise that the Balto-Slavic thunder-god Perkunas (Lith) or
Perun (Slav) wasn't mentioned.
But, perhaps, you are talking about a somewhat different word. There
are various hypotheses about Perkunas.
It may be derived from PIE "per(k)" (Ivanov 1974, Toporov1985) or
"per+g(a,) (Muehlenbach 1904, Endrelins 1951) and there three
possible explanations of the name:
(a) god of thunder and rain (b) god of height, mountain
(Gothic "fairguni") (c) god of oaks (perk-us cf Lat. quercus)
Take your pick.
I suspect that ultimately > the nameof the deity
meant "Fire Maker", a thunderbird concept
> taken from the asiatic steppes.
A Lithuanian legend talks about Perkunas riding a winged horse which
leaves a fire trail across the sky.Perhaps, that was later changed
into a firebird.?
> Do you mean allowing for theories such as these in
> linguistics that would otherwise go unnoticed in an obsessive
> quest for total regularity?
Let's put it this way: historical linguistics is a relatively young
branch of research into language. Total regularity is PIE in the
sky and I am sure you know it as well as any self-respecting
linguist. Nothing in science is or can be written on the tablets of
stone which is self-evident. Sound changes are fine, but they are
only the nuts and bolts that hold the construct together without
bothering to consider *meanings" and their changes. I consider
meaning far more important than who was the parent of some word. But
changes in meanings are far more difficult to pin down because they
interweave with the whole socio-cultural patterns of language users.
It is so much easier to play with vowels and consonants.
To answer your question: yes, obsessive quest for total regularity
and rejecting anything that is not orthodox may create a tunnel
vision and that could mean missing important
aspects in linguistics. But that is my personal viewpoint and
all other opinions are fine with me.
> I still think that hard rules are necessary for the proper
> reconstruction of any proto-language, as they have served
> well in IE studies and will serve in the budding
> Nostratic studies, but if I understand Stefan correctly, I
> would agree that _some_ allowances off the beaten road of
> regularity should be made in order to explore the poetic or
mythological side of the reconstructed language where
> scientific regularity isn't exactly respected...
Yet again - nuts bolts screws washers (as one newspaper headline put
it) :-) - are much needed element of every scientific enquiry. But a
bit of brainstorming, lateral thinking
and speculation should be encouraged on an open discussion list.
Anybody who finds it unbearable should simply delete such emails, so
what's the problem?
> But then, this list has made such allowances to a degree,
> so what then is the basis for Stefan's plaint?
I have no plaint, sir. It seems that it is soem other list members
who are chiding me for interrupting their contemplation of the
widgets that explain how the car (language) runs.
Stefan