From: mkelkar2003
Message: 36997
Date: 2005-04-09
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:56:19 +0000, mkelkar2003So having the correct ending is irregular?
> <smykelkar@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> >> We can now choose to reconstruct *snusá: or *snusós. If the
> >> proto-form was *snusá:, we have to explain why this word,
> >> denoting a female person, acquired the normally masculine
> >
> >
> >The NORMALLY masculine ending! Gotcha! Obviously what is "normal" is
> >decided by majority rule
>
> Nonsense. There's no such consideration as "majority rule".
> Even if only _one_ attested language had show *snusos, and
> all the others *snusa:, the reconstruction would have to be
> *snusos. What matters in comparative linguistics are the
> _irregularities_ that give insight into previous stages of
> the language.
> The ending *-os happens to be productively masculine inThe above para went right over the top of my head.
> _all_ Indo-European languages where the concept of masculine
> is relevant. The existence of remnant feminines in *-os,
> like *snusos, shows that this was not always the case.
>Meaning Swahili does not have a cognate word for Sanskrit Snusha. Ok,
> >Let us mess up this pretty picture of language families. There might
> >be another word in say Swahili that must be included in the
> >reconstruction also. You must check every single living or dead
> >language ever spoken on earth and that has a cognate include that in
> >your families.
>
> >Greek, Albanian, Armenian and Latin could be a "family" because they
> >don't have the beginning s in the word. Sanskrit and Russian can be
> >a family for they have the ending correct.
>
> I see. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> >WHERE these languages are spoken TODAY and by WHO should play no
> >role in how the language families are constructed.
>
> That is correct.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...