--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Culver
<christopher_culver@...> wrote:
> In my studies of comparative Indo-European linguistics, I am
somewhat
> confused as to which scholars hold which views. I do gather, for
> instance, that (...) Still, how other scholars view these
assertions is
> unclear.
This is a sad state of affairs, as I see it due largely to the
confluence of a number of problematic traditions:
The first is a tradition of behavioral autism. Scholars prefer
developing their own systems over sorting out what really is going on
and carrying out scholarly dialogue. It is my impression that this
has become worse with time.
The second is a tradition of truly heart-breaking authoritarianism.
In historical (and not only historical) linguistics as normally
carried out in institutional settings, the boss is always right.
Disagreeing with the boss is near-universally treated as a breach of
ethical and professional standards meriting exclusion from the group.
Contrary to what is often believed and despite local exceptions, this
tradition is not limited to Germany and does not seem to be on the
wane.
The third is a persistent tradition of not *weighing* but *feeling*
evidence. This leads to a bias in the direction of the theories one
was taught as a student, because they are familiar and therefore feel
right.
I find the results of all this extremely depressing. Laryngeal theory
was formulated in the seventies of the nineteenth century. How many
generations were needed before it was taken seriously by a majority
of members of the profession? What real science can claim such a
dismal record?
And wherever you look you'll find similar examples.
Then you ask:
> I'm especially curious as to beliefs on the precise nature of the
> larygeals, who believes h1 was definitely a glottal stop, for
example.
There is an instructive exchange of views on this in the "In honorem
Holger Pedersen" volume of 1994.
Best,
Willem