The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

>
> No wonder I get lost. You suggest it is something in second year
> linguistics, and then tell me it's a new theory. I'm very happy

to discuss

> any new suggestion. I'm less happy with unnecessary insults.
>
> >So much for that. I'd like to discuss the idea that supposed PIE
> >plain velars occur only in loans. So, fire away, list some examples
> >of what you believe to be incontrovertible examples of plain velars
> >and I'll check with Møller and Bomhard. I find them, you lose; I
> >don't find them, I lose. OK?
>
> If you find them in Bomhard, they are inherited within PIE, and not

loans,

> unless Bomhard is wrong.

If a root Bomhard has claimed to be Nostratic is in fact a loan, the
Bomhard is wrong about that particular root, true. He does actually
recant in an appendix on the 'taurus' root, reclassifying it as a
loan.

> And why present the argument in terms of "winning"
> and "losing"? Why not explore the issue together without someone

having to

> "win"?
>

That metaphor goes back to something I read that the Finnish logician
Hintikka had proposed, namely a game-theoretical interpretation of
quantified statements as a two-person game between a proponent and an
opponent: Unwrapping the quantified statement from the outside in, if
you meet a universal quantifier (the inverted A), the opponent should
try to find a value for x (the bound variable), such that the
statement quantified over is false; if you meet an existential
quantifier (the inverted E) the proponent should try to find a value
for the bound variable, such that the statement quantified over is
true; all of it applicable recursively, of course. In short, nothing
nore pugnacious than playing cards; just a game. Which is what it is,
after all. Also.

Torsten