Re: [tied] Re: Earth and Thorn

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 39180
Date: 2005-07-11

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Earth and Thorn

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Earth and Thorn



[Patrick:]
>   Some very competent linguists of the past (Benveniste, for one)
looked at the disconnect between Hittite and _ALL_ the other IE-
derived languages, and concluded that Hittite introduced the
metathesis; so the original form was *g^h-Dem- (I will use -D for
bar-d, thorn).

[Jens:]
Did he really? Then he was wrong, and everyone who has chosen to
follow him has been wrong too. 
 
***
Patrick:
 
And Benveniste was backed in his opinion by Pokorny, who, might be said, to have been somewhat knowledgeable.
 
****
 
Mate:
 
I would just like to say to calling in for the authorities is not serious linguistics. One should look at all the evidence, decide for himself what the best solution is and defend his view. Saying stuff like "Pokorny thought" or "Benveniste said" is hardly proof for anything in real science.
As for your Hittite mumbo-jumbo, I simply don't have patience or time to read those amateur "theories" about imaginary *dhig'hom etc. You should first consult some basic literature and than go on.
 
***
Patrick:
 
First, I believe that the opinions of recognizedly competent experts are important parts of the 'evidence. More than one man has been at Mimir's place for a drink.
 
Second, though comparative linguistics aspires to be a science, it is really only an art.  For the most important questions, we cannot form hypotheses and then confirm them with experiements. We  assemble as much data as we can, and then argue the merits of competing sets of probabilities. No one, save a time traveler, will ever be able to actually scientifically confirm what Hittite tikan is or was or came from.
 
As for your third point, I am doing just what you recommended: "look at all the evidence, decide for himself what the best solution is and defend his view".
 
I am afraid you share an unfortunate trait with Jens. You believe that if anyone reads what you have read, they will come to the same view. So anyone who disagrees must be unread. You are mightily wrong.