Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:58 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

On 2006-05-11 21:37, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> That the Nostratic Hypothesis has not fared well is not due to its
> weakness but to the ideological stances of its opponents.

Ascribing a false consciousness or an ideological agenda to your
critics is a pathetic argument. Much used by alien-abduction experts,
Atlantis-seekers and other enthusiasts of "forbidden knowledge".

 

***

Patrick:

 

What is truly pathetic is that IEists resisted 'laryngeals' and Nostratic because of the connection between PIE and Semitic via PAA.

 

***

> Bomhard, for example, is, in the main, on the right track even if I
> do not agree in all specifics:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/NostraticDictionary.htm
>
> No one who is totally objective can look at what he (and I; and
> others) have assembled without realizing that there is validity to
> the Nostratic idea. Only the details remain to be fine-tuned.

I wonder if any mortal being is "totally objective". I try to be as
objective as humanly possible but somehow I fail to see alleged manifest
validity of the Nostratic reconstruction. There is perhaps a faint
shadow of something promising there, but it's still too nebulous for me
(and for many others). It's only too easy to fool oneself into seeing
things one would like to see. Have you heard of Blondlot's N rays?

http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-rays

 

***

Patrick:

 

Of course, no one is "totally objective"! But a shadow is only caused by something material.

 

***

> Nostratic has been proved.

You may repeat it ad nauseam, but what difference does your mantra
make to the sceptics?

***

Patrick:

 

And you may equivocate ad infinitum with vague mumblings about shadows. To some skeptics, no kind of proof will ever be sufficient.

 

***

> This is the opposite of the now prevalent view that linguistic change
>  is the norm; and that time-periods of relative stability are the
> exception rather than the rule.

Ballester does not support this expectation with any real-world evidence
-- all he offers is armchair speculation. I have already mentioned some
_counterevidence_ to the claim that the environmental and social
conditions of the Palaeolithic favoured linguistic stability.

***

Patrick:

 

I found the counterevidence completely unconvincing and naif.

 

***

> This latter position is logically indefensible. It asserts effect
> without cause.

At least one cause of language change is _always_ there: imperfect
transmission of language from generation to generation. It's a
universally occurring driving force of linguistic evolution, like
mutations in biology.

***

Patrick:

 

That is so much idle speculation.

 

Prove it! Give us one example of _one_ change in _any_ language present in this generation that was brought about imperfect transmission from the previous generation — if you can.

 

I predict this will be a challenge which is ignored.

 

***