From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42709
Date: 2006-01-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter
> At 6:31:08 PM on Sunday, January 1, 2006, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> >>> Utter ridiculous!
>
> >>> Who re-creates them?
>
> >> Parental interpretation and reinforcement combining with
> >> the normal sequence of development of infant babbling.
>
> > Precisely. Just like normal language training!
>
> No, it isn't. Words like <mouse> and <foot> obviously
> cannot be attributed to parental interpretation of infant
> babbling.
***
Patrick:
Interpretation? What do you think the infant intends to convey?
***
> > And how old are these parentally sanctioned words?
>
> Words like <pop>, <pops>, <pappy>, <baba>, <da>, <dad(dy)>,
> <tad>, <tata>, <mom(my)>, <mum(my)>, <ma(ma)>, <mama>, etc.?
> Who knows? They're continually being re-created. I see
> that you've asked Etherman why this is the case; the answer
> is implicit in the mechanism that I gave in my previous
> post, still visible at the top of this one.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
***
Patrick:
Why should they need to be recreated? They are never lost?
***