Re: Re[6]: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

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

From: Brian M. Scott

To: Patrick Ryan

Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:32 PM

Subject: Re[6]: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

<snip>

> 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 do not believe that I have ever expressed an opinion of
Bomhard's work.

[...]

***

Patrick:

 

Well, why not share your opinion of Bomhard's work with us now?

 

***

<snip>

>> The reasons [for linguistic change] 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.

> How so very typical of Brian, whose positions need neither
> arguments nor proof - provided only Brian hold them.

I see no reason to offer detailed support for something that
every historical linguist knows, namely, that '[e]very
language and every dialect within a language is always in a
process of change' (R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of
Languages, §5.2).

Brian

***

Patrick:

 

Well, progress, not ad hominem but now only ex cathedra (which, of course, in the context of democracy is only a numbers game). Perhaps you are not aware, Brian, but I am not the only amateur or professional historical linguist who entertains the idea that very early forms of human language may be reconstructed.

As for Dixon, I can only agree. The question is not that change happens but rather how fast and how completely one stage of change masks an early form.

 

If I posit a PL *KHE, and attempt to connect it with Nostratic *k^A and PAA *xV, I am not denying change but affirming it.

 

 

***