[tied] Re: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Peter:
> > Suggesting that the form without r or n could be original. A
> > reconstruction is not the place to show the vagaries of a
> > particular dialect.
>
> Jens:
> > I am sure they are both trying to show the vagaries of the
> > protolanguage in the form addressed and do not want to make
> > unsubstantiated choices.
>
> Yet these vagueries, if they can truly be dramatized to
> that level, are those that your views ignore equally.

This is too vague; what vagaries are you talking about, if I am the
one being addressed here?

> Clearly this was mentioned to accomplish something that is
> outside the bounds of logic but is well within the domain of
> psychology. That purpose was to sabotage a path of reasoning
> that would lead us to the conclusion that your ideas are not
> as correct as you purport them to be.

How can *that* be clear? The information was supplied on demand: My
mess. 31862, already a reply to your direct question, informs about
the nominatives *-o:y in alternation with *-o:(:), comparing *-o:r
in alternation with *-o:(:). After an interlude of thanking me which
you no doubt regret, you come back in Mess. 31933, saying: "Wait a
minute. You're saying *-o:r alternates with *-o:? How do you mean?
Why would the *r disappear?" The rest has been an attempt to reply
to that in an equally civil manner, something I have lived to regret.

> Rather than welcoming
> change, you did the human thing by resisting it. Due to your
> own personality template, you perceived this path of reasoning
> as an attack on you

Did I now, Siegmund?

> rather than taking it as a proper
> assessment of your particular ideas in question.

> Hence by
> resisting this path, you will be able to thwart new ideas
> that contradict your own perception of reality no matter how
> false it may be. You've used this strategy before, for the same
> purpose. I would like to call this the "Horrible *ya Neurosis".

I may have neuroses galore, though hardly from the horrible *ya,
horrible though it is.

> > If there are several IE branches actually reflecting, say,

*dhug&2-

> > té:(:) without /-r/, and several others reflecting *-té:r in the
> > same word, there is a problem for reconstruction.
>
> You wish there to be a problem desperately. Can't admit being in
> error. Must continue this silly smokescreen. Clearly, if the
> paradigm shows *r as a whole, then *-r or even *-rs must be the
> original state of affairs in the nominative, regardless of whether
> you want to reconstruct *pxte:r or your **pxte: anyway.

Our reconstructions of PIE are meant to reflect PIE, not its
original state. In the same spirit we do not write laryngeals in
Sanskrit wordforms, not even if we can see them work.

> So... there is no logical point to this but to distract.

Okay, you're the one who knows, you asked the question.

> > If you do not want to be guilty of making unsubstantiated
> > choices you must keep the possibility open that both forms
> > belonged to the protolanguage and were both inherited from it.
>
> Yes, we "must". We'd be "guilty" otherwise. We'd be "bad" people
> if we were to make the "wrong" choice. And frankly, how then
> could we live with ourselves if we made such a blundering error?
> In that way, we will become hopelessly confused not knowing what
> is correct and what isn't as we open wide all possibilities,
> thereby allowing Jens to escape unscathed from his booboo during
> the mayhem <:) Some make mistakes, others deny them brilliantly.

I said "if".

> > How would Lith. dukte:~ and Skt. duhitá: proceed from a form in
> > *-té:r ?
>
> Common, everyday erosion.

And where else does such erosion apply in these languages? And where
does it apply to *-V:n in both, and to *-V:y in Indo-Iranian and
Greek? And to *-V:n in Latin and Anatolian? You may be right by
sheer chance, but you are insisting on a conclusion you are just
jumping to in answer to a problem you did not even know about when
you asked about it.

Jens