Me, being characteristically sarcastic:
>Apparently, Jens thinks that Uralic speakers could read in the
>5th millenium BCE.
Jens:
>Still, they must have counted the days, so we can use the verb in its old
>meaning 'count'.
It's good to know that you haven't lost your mind completely.
Alright, "to count" would be acceptable as long as there is
evidence to support that definition. I don't quite see how
"to count" becomes "to read". What is the in-between?
>It did stop, if only after I had presented the full basis, for fear
>that it would otherwise appear to be without foundation.
And where _is_ this foundation you speak of? You know full well
that it's easy to make up some drunk idea that *gHWn-me <
**gHWen-d-me-g but where on earth is the proof? How do you
support **-g?? Where did that **-d- come from?
I'm naturally not interested in what evidence in Eskimo-Aleut
supports some god-awful pre-IE construct! If we are talking
about IE, let's talk about _IE_.
Concerning the adjective to describe Jens' new "theory":
>May I suggest 'good' or 'constructive?
We can only call it "good" if it is founded on logic -- It isn't.
We can only call it "constructive" if, after being substantiated,
it leads us to a new understanding of pre-IE -- It doesn't.
May I suggest "crappy"?
This theory is pure fantasy and unbecoming for a linguist.
>The dual is nowhere on the advance, but plainly has the status
>of a fragile archaism wherever we see it.
True somewhat, although you taint it with biased interpretations
without substantiation. What we can immediately say unbiasedly
is that the dual was not fully formed by the time IE dissolved.
On the surface, we can say nothing about an "advance" or an
"erosion", or whether it is truely an "archaism" or not.
We must have more to go on than just this sole arguement if
we are to discourage other competing possibilities. Some other
competing possibilities are:
1. The dual is recent and its non-transparency is the
result of a sound change or the like.
2. The dual is recent and its origins have not been
properly and fully considered.
Personally, I side with the consensus that the dual is a late
innovation that didn't have enough time to fully form in IE.
Since we can be sure based on a lot of evidence that the
Anatolian group branched out earlier than the others, its
lack of dual (among other things), indicates that the dual is
indeed a recent innovation.
Further, it's an overstatement that the origin of the dual
isn't "transparent". It all stems from the numeral *dwo:u
"two". The ending *-u is analogical and based on the
opposition between prefixed *dwo- and the full form
*dwo:u, which makes it look like there is an ending where
there isn't. So etymologically speaking, there is no dual
ending on *dwo:u, nor is there one on *okto:u "eight"
but it came to be perceived this way by IE speakers. As a
result, natural pairs began to be marked in the new dual,
such as "eyes", "ears", etc.
From this, the dual system developed further, being optionally
markable in the verbal system. (I say "optionally" because
we could just as well use the plural pronominal endings on
dual objects and that's what we sometimes find attested.)
What you see as "fragile archaism", I see as a "fragile innovation".
>What do you mean? 'Two' in Uralic is something like *kakta. How is
>the powerful argument construed which you apparently derives from
>that?
It is the same powerful arguement that shows that Norse /vit/ has a
similar etymology.
>I do in fact reason that way, meaning that possibilities should be
>kept open until we know they are not true.
That's why your reasoning is disturbing and misguided. I don't object
to imagination and is needed to find new ideas. However, we don't
base our theories on imagination.
In fact, it should be logic first and foremost that determines the
shape of our theories. By your admission, you side with imagination,
making your theories chaotic.
>That, however, always has a simple reason, viz. that those
>suggested are demonstrably flawed or simply did not add up in the
>first place.
And your baseless pre-IE morphology replete with **-g and **-d-
"adds up"?? Come on now. To substantiate these markers I can
only accept evidence _within_ IE itself, but there is none.
The onus isn't up to me to show that your ideas, or any other
cockamamey ideas, aren't probable!
It's up to _you_ to prove that your theory _is_ probable.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail