--- In cybalist@..., Piotr Gasiorowski <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:
> Sorry for this re-posting, but I forgot to format the message
properly.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tgpedersen
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:18 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Initial stress
>
>
> > Ah, you're arguing coincidence. But then the laws of statistics
would apply and how could we then get such a large contiguous area?
>
>
>
> Well, first of all, the laws of statistics do not prohibit clusters
of identical events. They even predict them. If you toss a coin ten
times you will not normally get a sequence like HTHTHTHTHT or
THTHTHTHTH (on the average, only one sequence in 512 will be
perfectly alternating). I've just carried out this little experiment,
getting THHHTHTTHH, with a fairly large contiguous "area" of "heads".
Now if I argue that the second occurrence of "tails" is intrusive
(due to a late invasion), who knows if we aren't dealing with a vast
area of "heads", covering half of the string?
>
Another way of saying "coincidence" is "causeless effect". "Cop-out"
is too strong a word.
> Secondly, the existence of te area is not _entirely_ due to
coincidence. For example, the fact that Proto-Germanic was already
initially stressed strengthens the odds in favour of any Germanic
language to have initial stress (unless an innovation occurs, as in
English, but innovations are on the whole many times rarer than
retentions). Thirdly, I don't rule out diffusion or even substrate
influence. I simply don't see any solid evidence for the latter.
>
> Piotr
That is because I'm in the process of _producing_ evidence.
Sometimes I mix up the words "corroborate" and "corrugate". In my
head their is an image of having to hurry to build my little
squatter's shed of corroborating corrugated plates, while the big
guys are busy elsewhere: One won't stand alone, two won't, but if I
can just get enough together to lean on each other, perhaps the
structure will hold when they come back!
Torsten