From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41108
Date: 2005-10-07
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: *kap-
> Patrick Ryan wrote:
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > I am going to comment here on the language being used not on the main
> > argument which is being handled nicely by Grzegorz and Brian.
> >
> > Grzegorz, I think you do not understand that implying someone is
> > "undereducated", as you do here below, is an insult, and an
> > argumentum ad hominem, even if it be true.
>
> Patrick, you would have been right if I had written "you are
> undereducated".
> But I had not. "You quote bad sources written by undereducated ones" means
> not the same. You may term it an attack ad homines if you insist, or
> better
> ad personas - but it is not a direct attack towards a person I discuss
> with.
> A subtle but important difference.
>
> I only stated, and I maintain it, than most linguist (the majority) did
> not
> even know what Zipf wrote. They think that he wrote only about statistic
> classes, and they quote one another in this point to motivate what they
> think. Only few (the minority) have the consciousness that Zipf formulated
> a
> law which deals with probabilities and word length in a text. Which is
> more,
> the majority sometimes tries to send the minority back to school or
> suggests
> that the minority misscalls Zipf's law. Very sad, indeed.
>
> > Terming someone's argument "ridiculous", i.e. 'worthy of ridicule', is
> > similarly offensive.
>
> Not similarly, and it is not an attack ad hominem but an attack ad
> argumentum. Anyway, it is much less offensive than "don't be ridiculous",
> isn't it? I have heard such lines from my adversary but he has not heard
> such a statement from me, so you need not be his attorney.
>
> > I would also suggest a new thread, "Zipf's Law", since the arguments
> > advanced bear little relationship to *kap-.
>
> I do not think it is needed. As I said, it was not my intention to explain
> what Zipf's law is and what it is not, which linguists understand this
> term
> only like a statistic law and which linguists understand this term as a
> law
> saying about relations between word lengths and frequencies. I talked
> about
> some words which were changed due to frequency and not because of such or
> another phonetic rule ("sound law"). I quoted Zipf's law as the base for
> my
> statement. And even if it appeared that there is not the accordance here
> on
> what Zipf's law is and what it is not, I have been under impression that
> nobody calls my argument in question. But "has", "had" developed
> irregularily, and they are in close relation to PIE *kVp-. Ergo: we should
> expect that *kVp- developed irregularily in other languages as well. Ergo:
> Latin and Germanic habe:- may be related even if against known sound
> rules.
> This is what is important, all the rest is unnecessary commentary.
>
> > What published authors (print or Net) say about
> > Zipf is interesting
>
> ... but it is more interesting what Zipf himself said. I gave a quotation.
>
> > but lining up a group of publishers who _seem_
> > to agree with you
>
> Is there any seeming in terming Zipf's law "dealing with probabilities and
> word length in a text"? Or in the statement "George K. Zipf is famous for
> his law of abbreviations"? (it's from the article quoted by Brian, by the
> way) But abbreviation = a making shorter, and short has something to do
> with
> length, and not with statistic classes, isn't it? So, what doubt have you?
>
> > is only proof that some interpret Zipf in the same
> > way that you do (if, in fact, they do - which I sincerely doubt).
>
> If you are interested in this problem, read W. Man'czak's book "Problemy
> je,zykoznawstwa ogólnego". Yes, of course, the book is in Polish, and what
> of it. Professor Man'czak, who is a Romancist and a scholar interested in
> generel linguistics, gives a detailed analysis of the problem and plenty
> of
> examples on how Zipf's law functions. At the beginning of chapter 3, he
> wrote (my translation): "even if the name of the American linguist Zipf is
> scarcely known to most linguists, there is no doubt that the history of
> linguistics will acknowledge him as one of the most eminent lingists of
> the
> 20th century". It appears that we should agree with both those statements:
> that Zipf is scarcely known and that his law has much more universal
> character than so called "sound laws".
>
> > You both want to determine exactly what Zipf had in mind with his
> > formulation? Ask him (if he is still alive?).
>
> Not a problem, let's read his books. I cited him just because of this.
>
> Grzegorz J.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>