>> Jens' insistence that Proto-Semitic "had no vowels" because it has
>> no evidence of the lexical use of vowels is a perfect example of
>> the wrongheaded "absence is proof" mentality.
>
> Whatever mentality I display or suppress is off-topic.
Off-topic? This was not in any way meant as an ad hominem, as aggravating
as you can be sometimes. This is more like an ad credenda. I'm attacking
your way of thinking and it appears that since you supply no evidence
in an _existing_ language and relying rather on more _theories_ to support
your views, you are indeed using an absence-is-proof mentality and it is
wrongheaded if our goal is Truth. This is not off-topic. It's fair game.
> I only said there is reportedly no lexical use of vowel oppositions
> in Semitic.
And Semitic is a _theory_, not proof by any means. Choose an attested
language please *and* demonstrate that it is anything other than a
very minority situation, then I'll reconsider its applications to IE
and pre-IE stages.
> Anyone is free to make of that what he likes;
But make WHAT what (s)he likes? Semitic isn't anything. It's a theory
and theories can be wrong. Facts however are irrefutable and you supply
none.
> [...] to me it means that the vowel system of the Semitic *lexicon*
> is zero,
Circular. This is a theory based on a theory based on a theory and no
substance in the end. Your mind is enslaved to reificata.
Putting aside the deeper philosophical analyses of reality, you do agree
that Proto-Semitic is an unattested language (attested only in the sense
that it is supported by modern data either in writing or living speech).
Semitic is a _theory_ by all accounts, and not as "real" as a living
language, don't you? If you can agree, you must see that it cannot be
used as evidence when discussing language universals which pertain to
all languages living and dead, theoretical or not. If it cannot be
used as evidence, you have no evidence for your claim. If you have no
evidence for your claims and you do this regularly, you exhibit an
absence-is-proof mentality as I stated, which must stop if we are to get
at the truth.
I can only hope that you see the point eventually.
= gLeN