From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 44548
Date: 2006-05-12
----- Original Message -----From: Brian M. ScottTo: Patrick RyanSent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:50 PMSubject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups<snip>
> Did you notice "(also Proto-Language)"?
Do you understand the word 'also'? It has here the force of
logical AND. Unfortunately for your claim, I have NOT
asserted that some authority has decided that Nostratic and
also Proto-Language are too old for identifiable traces to
survive, because I have made no such statement about
Nostratic.
I *have* asserted, and in my own name at that, that this is
the case for a hypothetical common ancestor of all known
human languages. I very much doubt that any competent
linguist would disagree. Indeed, I rather suspect that most
share my view that anyone who thinks otherwise is, er,
untutored, highly eccentric, or both.***Patrick:"Most" shared the view that the world was flat at one time. The herd-mentality you idolize does not work well for lemmings.You obviously mean to insinuate (or perhaps, assert) that I am untutored and highly eccentric. Is that what _tutored_ people do, argumenta ad hominem?***
>>> Nostratic has been proved.
>> Pull the other one; it has bells on.
> Well, if you are so certain, why not offer a little proof?
The existence of a substantial number of knowledgeable
skeptics is proof that N. hasn't 'been proved'.***Patrick:Only when objectivity has been assured.***
And if you're talking about the actual linguistics itself,
the burden of proof lies with those who wish to maintain one
of the various Nostratic hypotheses, not with the skeptics.***Patrick:The burden of proof has been carried by Nostraticists like Bomhard, for example, whose work you reject without addressing its arguments with anything but your prejudices.***
>>>> I'm not going to prevent anyone from trying to
>>>> demonstrate the validity of long-range groupings. I can
>>>> only wish such adventurous spirits success. But somehow
>>>> the task proves to be enormously difficult -- much more
>>>> difficult, at any rate, than the reconstruction of the
>>>> ancestral language of a family with the probable time
>>>> depth of five or six millennia. Information (and with
>>>> it, evidence of relatedness) _is_ gradually lost over
>>>> time as a side-effect of language change. This fact
>>>> _must_ make reconstruction problematic sooner or later.
>>> Well, that is why Ballester's essay is so useful.
>> Piotr's already given a generous sample of reasons why it
>> isn't particularly useful, but he didn't mention my
>> favorite bit of silliness:
> Argue you own case, if you can.
I wasn't making a case; Piotr had already demolished
Ballester, making the points that I would have made and a
couple more besides.***Patrick:Utter ridiculous!!!***I was merely pointing out two
statements of Ballester's that in my opinion are (a)
hilarious and (b) sufficient by themselves to cast doubts on
his qualifications to write about language.
[...]***Patrick:It seems that no one but Brian and Piotr have the qualifications to write about language. Ah, the loneliness of leadership.***
>>> 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.
>>> This latter position is logically indefensible. It
>>> asserts effect without cause.
>> No, it doesn't. It states an empirical observation, which
>> we may then try to explain.
> Well, then explain it.
The reasons are not relevant to the point that I was making.
Even if we knew absolutely nothing about the mechanisms of
language change, which is not in fact the case, you would
still be stuck with the empirical observation that
linguistic change is the norm.
***Patrick:How so very typical of Brian, whose positions need neither arguments nor proof provided only Brian hold them.***