Re[4]: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

At 12:32:33 AM on Sunday, May 15, 2005, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott<mailto:BMScott@...>
> To: Patrick Ryan<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:41 PM
> Subject: Re[2]: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

> At 7:39:58 PM on Saturday, May 14, 2005, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> > For root aorists, I count 600, 76 being from minimal roots.
> > Thus, most roots just are punctual, and so of course there are also
> > more punctual roots made from any given structure that one might be
> > interested in (for whatever reason). But actually the percentage of
> > CVC roots is lower among the aorists than among the presents, viz.
> > 12.6 versus 14.6. Now that does not make me go crazy and claim the
> > opposite, for there is no reason to assume that this has any reason
> > associated with the root structures at all. Why would there be an
> > absolutely equal distribution at all? Most other things are not
> > equally big, why would these two groups be?

> ***

> > As we both know, each root deserves its own scrutiny
> > so my remarks should be interpreted cum grano salis.

> > Let us start first with your root aorists. Of 600,
> > you report 76 *CVC's. Assuming you and I would both agree
> > on exclusions, let us consider the count of 130 root
> > presents, of which you report 19 have CVC.

> > If we ignore the *CVC requirement for a moment, a
> > *CVC is 461% more likely to be a root aorist than a root
> > present.

> Nonsense; you fail to take into account that there are far
> more root aorists in the first place. In fact, as Jens
> already noted, 76/600 is 12.7%, and 19/130 is 14.6%, so a
> *CVC roots are actually slightly *more* common amongst root
> presents.

> ***
> Patrick writes:

> Are you an Hegelian, Brian?

I'm a mathematician.

> In the material world, we go by numbers.

> Let me put it another way then.

> Any given *CVC is 76/19ths more likely to be a root
> aorist than a root present; i.e. 400%.

And any given verbal root is 600/130 times as likely to be a
root aorist as to be a root present (on the basis of the
figures available here); that's a little over 460%. In
short, the probability that a given verbal root is a root
aorist goes *down* slightly if we know that it's a *CVC
root: the probability that a root chosen at random from the
730 verbal roots under consideration is 600/730, or about
82%; the probability that a root chosen at random from the
95 *CVC roots is a root aorist is 76/95, or 80%.

> If one ignored the *CVC requirement, any given "root"
> is 600/130 more likely to be a root aorist than a root
> present; i.e. 461%.

> You say that I fail to take into account that there
> are far more root aorists. That was the point! Have you
> been unable to follow the discussion?

> You are confused by the *CVC-factor.

On the contrary. If you understood the numbers, you'd
realize that they say nothing about *CVC roots as a
category.

> ***
> > I believe, prima facie, that proves my contention; namely,
> > that a *CVC root without any excluded markings, will be
> > punctual.

> No, it merely shows that root aorists are more common than
> root presents irrespective of root structure.

> ***
> Patrick writes:

> Punctual = aorist. Get it now?

I got it the first time -- as would be obvious if you'd
understood my comment (and the relevant mathematics) in the
first place. *Any* verbal root is more likely to be a root
aorist. This is no more true of *CVC roots than of verbal
roots in general -- indeed, very slightly *less* true.

If you merely wish to make the point that root aorists are
more common than root presents, fine, but don't pretend that
this has anything to do with *CVC roots in particular.

Brian