Re: o-grade thoughts

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> 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.

Pesonally, when I'm confronted with a line of reasoning that's
that's pertinent to, but outside my chosen area of expertise,
I tend to read up on that subject. But we are all different

> > '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.

Maybe you're right. You're not misunderstanding, you're just
choosing ignorance and trying to hit me with the book on familiar
concepts. If you come around, try Barwise and Perry: Situations
and Attitudes.

> It's like believing you are a large set of people because your
> life has had many stages.

It's more like when I talk about several situations of my own
life, and sevaral situations of several peoples' lifes, I
remember to add -s to 'situation'.

> "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.

Bla-bla-bla. As if I didn't know. I was using a parallel set
of concepts.

> >> 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.

'Morphologically', he wrote. Can't you read?

> 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.

That would have been **(i-)sód-e-ti/si-sd-onti. I don't either.

> >> 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?

Logically, he wrote.

> >> 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.
>

said Piotr


Torsten