Re: Re[4]: [tied] *kW- "?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] *kW- "?"



<snip>

> > It is an article of faith for those who respect reality.
>
> > It is certainly clear to me and any objective observer
> > what 'motivated' means in this context. Palatalization
> > occurs rather regularly before front vowels and /y/ in
> > innumerbale languages.
>
> Of course. It is fairly clear that some changes are
> likelier than others; that says nothing about whether all
> linguistic changes are motivated, or whether (or how) such a
> statement is even meaningful. It is also clear that some
> changes have no obvious motivation. And anyone who thinks
> seriously about what actually constitutes an explanation in
> historical linguistics -- and 'this change is motivated by
> X' is typically presented as an explanation -- must soon
> realize that the question isn't at all simple.

***
Patrick:

Ah, now you have identified the _real_ problem. Because a motivation is not
_obvious_ does not mean it is absent. In this universe, all effects have
causes. We still do not know what 'causes' gravitational effects but no
scientist believes that they are 'uncaused'.

And, I never said that the answers are "simple". In fact, some answers may
never be acquired - in our lifetimes - but I have absolutely no doubt that
answers are there, obscured though they may be.

And here, I must tritely employ a favorite tool: Occam's Razor. The simplest
explanation for the phenomena we see associated with 'palatalized' dorsals
is their origination as dorsals + /e/ or + /y/.

***

> >>> It is supremely important to retain the palatalized
> >>> dorsals where we can identify them because they allow us
> >>> to know that the pre-PIE vowel in that position was /e/.
>
> >> This is an argument for retaining the distinction between
> >> *k^ and *k; it has nothing to do with their phonetic values.
>
> > Then the question is meaningless. If *k^ does not
> > represent palatalized /k/ then the matter of markedness
> > becomes moot.
>
> Obviously. But your argument for retaining the distinction
> has nothing to do with this.

***
Patrick:

You are so wrong. My argument for retaining them is that they efficiently
and _simply_ describe the phonological developments we see from them in
satem languages. Even in modern languages like English: virtue (/vIrtju/ ->
/vir[tsh]u/).

I merely point out that palatalized dorsals are a way of identifying pre-PIE
DORSAL + /e/ or /j/, something that would otherwise be very problematical.

***

> > Are you really suggesting that *k^ does _not_ represent
> > palatalized /k/?
>
> People who know far more about the matter than I have
> suggested just that. I won't go so far as to say that the
> arguments are compelling, but I find them fairly persuasive,
> yes.


***
Patrick:

Perhaps they only think they know more about it.

And I find their arguments, which are based of the theoretical paucity of
marked phonemes completely uncompelling for reasons I have stated.

***

> >>> 'Markedness' is a useless concept. If it had any
> >>> legitimacy, Khoisan could not exist with its very "marked"
> >>> clicks.
>
> >> This is an absurd straw man.
>
> > Why do you not explain why this is absurd?
>
> I thought it obvious. Markedness is just a way of talking
> about a probability distribution. Your claim amounts to
> denying the legitimacy of a probability distribution in
> which some entities have low but non-zero probability, which
> is obviously absurd. Saying that clicks are very marked is
> no different in principle from saying that human heights
> above 7 feet (~2.13 m) are marked. Your Khoisan statement
> has an exact parallel in 'If (height) markedness had any
> legitimacy, Zydrunas Ilgauskas (7' 3", 2.21 m) could not
> exist'.

***
Patrick:

"Obvious" is introduced when one has an unsupportable bias.

And you completely distort what I have said. I have never stated nor do I
believe that some entities, like certain phonemes, have low probabilities of
occurrence. It is Glen's 'deduced' implication from that statistic that he
calls 'markedness' that I consider illegitimate. Glen has argued that the
frequency of palatalized dorsals as currently theorized in PIE means that
they cannot have been palatalized dorsals phonetically because
statistically, palatalized dorsals are relatively unlikely. I pointed out
that clicks are phonetically unlikely but, in Khoisan, they are very
frequent. Therefore, the frequent occurrence of an unlikely phonemes in a
given system does not rule out the possibility of its occurrence. Glen's
mistake is an imperfect understanding of probability; yours is that you
obviously never really understood Glen's argument.

The proof that you have completely misunderstood the question and my
responses to it is in your comical:

"Your Khoisan statement has an exact parallel in 'If (height) markedness had
any legitimacy, Zydrunas Ilgauskas (7' 3", 2.21 m) could not exist'."

This is, in essence, _Glen's_ argument. Nothing I have said would suggest
that 7' 3" humans, though statistically unlikely, can and do exist.

***

> Brian