Re[8]: [tied] Re: Etymology of PIE *ph2ter

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 42717
Date: 2006-01-02

At 1:09:30 AM on Monday, January 2, 2006, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> At 8:21:47 PM on Sunday, January 1, 2006, Patrick Ryan
>> wrote:

>>> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>>>> 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.

>>> Interpretation? What do you think the infant intends to
>>> convey?

>> I have no reason to suppose that the infant initially
>> intends to convey anything in particular by playing with its
>> vocal organs, any more than it does when it plays with its
>> hands and feet by waving them about. Parents, on the other
>> hand, are in general quite happy to suppose that they are
>> being 'named'.

> Then explain please what is being "interpreted"?

The sounds made by the infant, obviously.

>>>>> 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.

>>> Why should they need to be recreated?

>> I said nothing about need; the conditions for continuous
>> reintroduction exist, whether they're needed or not.

> Absolutely and fundamentally wrong and illogical on top of
> it.

On the contrary, it's quite obvious.

> If /ma/ exists in the parents vocabulary, it cannot be
> "re-created" as you state.

Which says absolutely nothing about whether the conditions
permitting continuous reintroduction exist.

[...]

>> However, the fact that they keep cropping up despite
>> regular sound changes that ought to affect them is good
>> evidence of continuous reintroduction. (By the way, your
>> suggestion that 'Grimm's Law needs to be updated to
>> provide for vocabulary used within the family circle'
>> seems a bit misguided: there's a great deal of vocabulary
>> used -- and used frequently -- within the family circle
>> that does not exhibit such phoenix-like qualities.)

> Can you not understand that something that is already
> there cannot be reintroduced?

You persist in missing the point. If you attribute great
age to something like <pa> 'father', say, then you must
account for its failure to become *fa in the Germanic
languages. How is *pa and more 'already there' than
*p&2ter? If you don't like the specific term
'reintroduced', substitute 'continually reinforced'.

> To what vocabulary do you refer?

Pretty much the whole of common, everyday vocabulary.

>>> They are never lost?

>> Even within a single family the familiar, informal term
>> can change from one generation to the next.

> More illogic!

However much it may offend your sense of logic, that is an
empirical observation, a statement of fact.

[...]

Brian