Brian:
> No, it isn't. Ockham's Razor is an injunction against
> multiplying entities unnecessarily.
Yes. We know that Syncope exists in some circumstances. We aren't sure
whether it exists in others. So we begin by generalizing Syncope for all
examples and if it is false, it will be proven by contradiction.
By generalizing Syncope, I start with only one possible syllable shape
throughout the language, CV(C), instead of going hog-wild on imagination.
To do otherwise, in fact, leads to the Likely-Story theories that you
are speaking against. I'm not multiplying entities unnecessarily. That is,
I'm not multiplying every possible syllable shape together. Understanding
syllable shape is intrinsic to proper reconstruction. So this very much
is Ockham's Razor.
> Where there is no evidence that a particular cluster is the result of
> syncope, a postulated cluster-breaking vowel is an unnecessary
> entity.
'Fraid not. I don't know of a clear cut case where there wasn't a
cluster-breaking vowel. I mean, there's *stex- "to stand" but how
do we know it's not *sed- "to sit" plus *-ex-? It looks to me like
that it's probably just that, given that the semantics work. All of IE's
initial clusters all suggest a loss of vowel. IE verbs with *s- are often
connectable to causitive forms in Semitic where we know that a vowel had
existed.
= gLeN