At 8:00:54 PM on Monday, July 25, 2005, Patrick Ryan wrote:
> From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
>> <proto-language@...> > wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "David Russell Watson"
>>> <liberty@...> wrote:
>>>> You don't still believe that you can reconstruct the
>>>> first human language, do you?
>> You didn't answer this one.
> Because it is not germane to the question of the
> relationship of Afrasian to PIE.
> But yes, I believe I have isolated the monosyllables that
> made up the world's first language.
The belief that this is possible is incompatible with an
understanding of the timescale involved and the nature of
linguistic change. Even if by some remarkable accident a
little positive evidence still existed, it would be
completely lost in the statistical noise.
This is off-topic here, but since it underlies some of your
arguments, I can't resist pointing out how badly some of the
IE evidence has been handled.
> You can see them if you wish at:
> http://geocities.com/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm
Oh, dear. 'English has inherited a number of words that
preserve the earliest meanings of the P[roto-]L[anguage]
monosyllables: P?E, 'urine', in Modern English <pee>;
P?E-P?E, 'urinate', in Modern English <peepee>.'
Then there's this, from
<
http://geocities.com/Proto-language/ProtoLanguage-5.htm>.
A strong confirmation of the original three-vowel contrast
(really glide contrast) of the Proto-Language is found in
the facts of Old Irish. ... When we see this pervasive
system in an IE language that has perpetuated an ancient
situation, it is difficult to believe that it was not a
feature of, at least, earliest IE, and, most probably
Nostratic, from which IE and Afrasian among others are
descended.
OIr <maicc>, gen.sing. of <macc> 'son', continues Ogam Ir.
MAQ(Q)I, where Q, representing *kW, seems distinctly
unlikely to have had original palatal quality, and of course
the final consonant of the nom.sing. <macc>, unlike that of
<maicc>, does not have palatal quality. The facts of OIr do
*not* suggest that the system was inherited.
The current dogma among IEists is that palatal and velar
articulations were occasioned by the presence of e or o
after the consonant --- in spite of the fact that the
palatalization or velarization of the consonants persists
in other phonetic environments.
Examples?
1) Let us look at the Modern Irish word for "noise
(loud confused clamor, din)": <cullóid>. We recall
that the reconstructed Nostratic form would be *kwal-.
We saw in Greek <kaléo:> that the root was
differentiated from other "kel"'s by a final -y. It
begins to looks very much like <cullóid> was derived
from an early IE kwa"lay (through kwl-"loy), and that
the w-glide can still be seen reduced in the MI u.
Except that this is EIr <callóid>, a borrowing of Latin
<collatio> (according to the RIA's Dictionary of the Irish
Language), from *kom and a suffixed, zero-grade form of
*telh2- (PIE based on Watkins).
2) In Modern Irish <scal>, sting of a nettle, we see
Nostratic s-mobile + *kal-; and in Modern Irish
sceolang, "fleet, agile", we see s-mobile + Nostratic
*kyal-.
Except that OIr <sceolang> = <sceola> 'news-bringer;
survivor (of a battle)', a derivative of <scél> 'story,
narration, tale; news, tidings'. For modern Irish Dinneen
gives the primary sense 'a fugitive, a deserter'; the
adjectival sense 'fleet, agile' is clearly derivative.
3) Now, consider Old Irish gáu, "falsehood", which
occurs also in Middle Welsh geu, and Middle Breton
gou. Since every Irish vowel has one of three
qualities, which quality does the initial g have? An
a-quality because of gáu? An e-quality because of geu?
Or an o-quality because of gou?
4) Current Celtic theory cannot give a good answer.
Kenneth Jackson had no such problem, deriving all of the
Brittonic forms from Late Brit. *ga:w- (LHEB 373). (And of
course the OIr form would take precedence anyway, since the
phenomenon is specifically Irish.)
>>>> That's significant though, because even if you both
>>>> agree that Sumerian is Nostratic, your two voices don't
>>>> constitute cumulative support of that when you differ
>>>> in your actual reconstructions.
>>> Excuse me, but that is ridiculous.
>> No that's simple logic.
> No, it is ignorant.
No. It is correct as far as it goes, but it's incomplete.
Two different reconstructions can be isomorphic or nearly
so, in which case they are mutually supportive. (Someone --
I think Richard -- already made this point in different
words.) But when the two reconstructions are not nearly
isomorphic -- when, that is, they are significantly
different in phonological structure, say, and not just in
phonetics -- then it is indeed ridiculous to suppose that
they support each other.
>> Your claim is that since both Bomhard and Ryan believe in
>> the cognacy of Sumerian and P.I.E., that it must be so.
> That is not my view, and it is not Bomhard's view.
> The relationship is not a priori, it is a hypothesis that
> he tested, and I tested; we bppth found it a tenable
> hypothesis.
This is relevant *only* if the detailed results of your
testing are compatible in the sense explained above. If you
arrive at significantly different reconstructions, you
demonstrate only that at least one of you is significantly
wrong (and that something is wrong with the associated
testing or its interpretation).
>> However we have agreed that it is the quality of the
>> argument itself and nothing else that matters, have we
>> not? So if you and Bomhard are making the same argument,
>> it amounts to _one_ argument, and one argument made no
>> better simply because two share it. If on the other hand
>> you and Bomhard make different arguments, they cancel
>> each other out in so far as they differ.
> You are really dense.
> If a start with Egyptian d3, tremble', and compare it to
> PIE *der-, 'tremble', it does not matter one little
> turdlet if I say the proto-form of the first consonant was
> /l°/ or /z/ or /þ/ as long as I can show that whatever
> proto-consonant I propose consistently shows up in
> Egyptian as <d> and in PIE as *d.
This obviously has nothing to do with the point that David
was making. He was addressing your claim that two voices,
yours and Bomhard's, agreeing that Sumerian is Nostratic
constitute cumulative support for that hypothesis. You are
now discussing internal evidence for your reconstruction,
which is a different matter altogether.
Brian