Re: Re[2]: [tied] Pronunciation of "r" - again?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:56 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Pronunciation of "r" - again?


> At 9:03:52 PM on Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
>
> >> [...] I was quoting a claim of Patrick's from earlier in
> >> the thread, one which I personally give no credence, and
> >> which is what prompted me to enter the thread in the
> >> first place. :^)
>
> [...]
>
> > Laryngeal theorists usually assume three different
> > "laryngeals", which they call *H1, *H2, *H3, and then
> > squabble over what they were phonetically.
>
> > What PIE-derived language has three "laryngeals"?
>
> > Two "laryngeals"? Germanic if you count the glottal stop
> > and /h/, even though it is not a _retention_ from PIE.
> > Hittite, if you assume initial vowels are really /?V/.
>
> > One "laryngeal"? Ah, some IE languages have a glottal
> > stop. Close enough.
>
> > Arabic has four "laryngeals", /?, h, ¿, H/.
>
> > I make the claim again: Arabic has _retained_ "laryngeals"
> > (really laryngals and pharyngals) better (more) than any
> > PIE-derived language.
>
> > You still think this is wrong? [...]
>
> It's irrelevant. The claim to which David was objecting was
> this: 'The language that has best retained the Nostratic
> sound-system is Arabic' (Nr. 41092). Specifically, he's
> objecting to the implicit claim that there is an accepted
> Nostratic super-family with an accepted sound-system. Since
> in fact there isn't, he's right to object.
>
> Brian


***
Patrick:

Brian, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I will always be
interested in it when you express it but I do think it is highly
inappropriate for you or anyone else to interpret David's (or someone
else's) words for him _before_ he even has had an opportunity to respond
himself.

Unless, of course, he has appealed to you for your assistance in commenting
on my remarks?

There is so much evidence for Nostratic in one formulation or another that
only an academic who is afraid he might have to learn something new outside
of his chosen field can pretend it is not there. Although the details may
need some fine-tuning, there is general agreement among Nostraticists on
what the correspondences are. What Nostratic desperately needs is more
intelligent, academically trained persons who will debate these issues.
fine-tune them, and finally arrive at a consensus.

As for accepted sound-systems, how do we decide this? There are several
competing views on what the PIE sound-system was. Does that mean that none
of them is likely to be close to right or simply that PIE has its share of
genius and idiocy?

Take, for an example, Brugmann's "Law". Some of the best IEists backed it;
some others of the best IEists rejected it. Our own Miguel refused (by not
responding to my request, made on several occasions) to define it. There are
always going to be those who disagree with perfectly adequate hypotheses. If
lack of agreement is the sole criterion, then there would be no such thing
as linguistics.

I, for one, have proposed /?, h, ¿, H/ for Nostratic. So has Bomhard. Who
among modern Nostraticists does _not_ believe that Nostratic had these
phonemes?

If you cannot produce at least one credible Nostraticist who does not
believe Nostratic had these phonemes, then your "with an accepted
sound-system" is not only misleading, it is an actual misrepresentation.

***