Re: [tied] Re: o-grade thoughts

On 2006-08-30 11:46, tgpedersen wrote:

> I don't think of reasoning from semantics as preconceived opinion.
> It's that type of reasoning you'll have to do if want to construct
> a data representation language, eg. for data bases. Didn't you
> once study computer sciuence?

You're trying to show that, originally, reduplication _must_ have
expressed plurality despite there being no evidence for any such claim
in the IE data. An opinion which is based solely on such an a priori
conviction and not on some kind of verifiable data is preconceived by
definition. You can't make a case without _any_ evidence.

> 'Serial repetition' and 'simultaneous plurality' both denote a
> *set*, ie a collective of several occurrences, which may be
> sequential or simiultaneous among themselves. *That* is what
> I meant; you misunderstand.

I don't. You insist on confusing Aktionsart with plurality, using
dubious philosophy of time and space as a smokescreen and calling it
logic. It's like believing you are a large set of people because your
life has had many stages. "Plural", as a grammatical feature of verbs,
refers to the number of agents (in PIE, one, two or many), not to any
other kind of multiplicity.

>> Give me a single example of reduplication distinguishing
>> singular from plural forms in an IE verb or noun.
>>
>
> Morphologically, OHG bibo:n vs. Slavic bojati.

These are not sg. vs. pl. forms. All reduplicated formations in PIE are
reduplicated in the singular as well as the plural. For example,
*sí-sd-e-ti/*sí-sd-onti, NOT e.g. **séd-e-ti/sí-sd-onti. I don't know of
a single example of the latter pattern anywhere in IE.

>> But there are also other uses of reduplication,
>
> In my opinion, they are logically derivative.

Well, it's just an empty claim. Where's the evidence?

>> Typological considerations don't carry
>> any weight if there's no shred of evidence to support them.
>
> In the Popper scheme, considerations carry little weight in
> the build-up phase. The proof is in the eating of the theory:
> Does it stand or fall?

With so little to stand on, it falls.

Piotr