Re: [tied] Re: o-grade thoughts

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 45951
Date: 2006-09-04

At 7:40:27 AM on Monday, September 4, 2006, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 2:30:40 AM on Monday, September 4, 2006, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>>>>>> Brian and I asked for _evidence_, not for a
>>>>>> preconceived opinion.

>>>>> I don't think of reasoning from semantics as
>>>>> preconceived opinion.

>>>> Whether it is or not, it isn't *evidence* of anything
>>>> except the mental processes of the reasoner.

>>> I never understood why you and Piotr wanted me to prove a
>>> definition.

>> We don't. You didn't offer a definition; you made a claim
>> about languages. We wanted you to supply evidence for that
>> claim.

> I don't get it. What is this claim about languages you think
> I made?

Specifically, in the case of English, this claim from
message 45893:

> Reduplication may also express intensity, repetition and
> the like ("It rained and rained as he rode and rode").

And originally that meant: it rained, then it rained; he
rode, then he rode. Plurality of rains spells, plurality
of riding stages.

More generally, in message 45896 you extended the claim to
reduplication in PIE:

> What is your evidence for original plurality rather than the
> duration and/or intensity that the usage now conveys?

Partly logical: the idea is that a reduplicated verb stem
(and its nominal derivates) would designate several
occurrences of the type of event the root of the
reduplicated stem designates.

You've offered no evidence for either claim: the way the
concepts fit together in your conceptual universe isn't