Mate:
> Nope, no multiplication here. I'm just saying that
> languages *do* pass unstable phases in which funny
> things like [k'] [...]
As I've explained in a seperate post, you are
misapplying Occam's Razor. You are mistaking
"possibility" for "probability". We are in agreement
that it is "possible" that such things may happen.
However, it CANNOT logically follow that this is also
_probable_ for IE without further substantiation.
You are logically in error by that simple flaw of
reasoning. It is *not* most probable that *k^ exists
because plain *k conforms with markedness better and
is therefore more probable. This has already been
demonstrated amply.
While supporting plain *k for traditional *k^ is
based on the well known principle of markedness,
your insistance on **k^ is based on _extravagant
rarity_. Clearly then, your viewpoint remains
irrational.
> Nope, it makes IE unstable which clearly *was* the
> case.
Apparently you don't understand that IE is a THEORY.
If it were "fact", then yes, one could then smugly
appreciate the rarity of its feature without further
concern. Afterall one cannot change the facts.
However, we most certainly can and SHOULD change our
theories. Since we know IE is a theory, the
traditional account of IE MUST be altered to suit
the facts of about markedness, not to suit one's
emotional whims. It is logically inevitable.
> Gladly, but I think that empiric data are far more
> important than theories.
The traditional IE theory violates what is
empiricially known about the universal tendency which
we call 'markedness', measured in fact by the empiric
data seen in all known world languages. Sorry, your
arguement here is invalid.
> If there was no Luwian, I would be glad to accept
> it. But Luwian *does* exist, sorry...
Yes, Luwian shows the original contrast of *k (>
satem *c^ > z), *q (=> k) and *kW (=> kW). I'm
equally sorry that you still don't understand my
viewpoint.
> I also don't think that palatalized velars are very
> ancient but I do think we need to reconstruct them
> for the last stage of IE.
Apparently you still "think" this based on nothing
but improbability in direct violation of Occam's
Razor.
Certainly not based on markedness. Exactly what sort
of 'linguistics' do you follow if you carelessly
ignore the very principles that linguists respect?
> Wait a minute. You *are* aware that Luwian shows
> different outcomes for *k, *k' and *kW consistently
> (k, z and kw)?
Duh :) Again, you misunderstand my viewpoint. This is
also an invalid arguement.
= gLeN
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com