Re[8]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

At 9:44:52 AM on Saturday, October 13, 2007, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> At 3:53:26 AM on Sunday, September 30, 2007,
>> fournet.arnaud wrote:

>> [I had written:]

>>>> Early attestations of OE, ON, OSax, and OHG are far too
>>>> similar to be the result of some three millennia of
>>>> divergence; the suggestion can't be taken seriously.

>> [...]

>>> I don't think these languages are that much similar.
>>> I(ch) stand means present in English : past : I got up
>>> in German.

>> The modern German preterite <stand> is altogether
>> irrelevant: it's a 17th century innovation, and I was
>> talking about the early Gmc. dialects. The relevant data
>> for this verb are as follows:

>> Pret. Pret. Past
>> Inf. Sing. Plur. Part.
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Goth. standan sto:þ sto:þum *staþans
>> OE standan sto:d sto:don standen
>> OSax standan sto:d sto:dun standan
>> stuond
>> OHG stantan stuont stuontun gistantan
>> (stuot)
>> ON standa stóð stóðu staðinn

>> The vowels match perfectly. All have the n-infix in the
>> present. In OE, OSax, and OHG it was extended to the
>> past part. as well, and in OHG and OSax it infiltrated
>> the pret. as well, though OHG <stuot> appears
>> sporadically as late as the 12th century. These minor
>> differences in the extent to which the nasal infix spread
>> from the present to the rest of the paradigm do almost
>> nothing to obscure the obvious identity of these verbs.

>> In short, your example doesn't support your claim.

> It is obvious these forms are one only verb.

> You gave Past forms and you invented Gothic Past
> participle which is not attested.

Your complaint is unwarranted: I gave the standard
reconstruction and clearly marked it as unattested.

> Your arguments are a bit too short to support refutation.

They're a good deal more complete than the evidence that you
offered for your claim that the languages aren't very
similar: as I pointed out last time, your 'evidence' has
nothing to do with the languages that were being compared.
And even if it did, a single isolated datum is grossly
insufficient to support a claim that the languages aren't
very similar.

This isn't the first time that you've employed a double
standard: a couple of months ago you refused to accept the
standard etymology of <quercus> on the grounds that the
semantic relationship between 'fir-tree' and 'oak-tree' was
too remote(!), but it didn't seem to bother you in the least
to claim for your private theory 'an obvious root for oak
and some other tree names in Celtic and Italic languages'.
Perhaps if you held your own ideas to the same standard that
you apply to the commonly accepted views, more of them would
actually have some merit.

> Could you also give Present ancient forms too ?

> You carefully avoided providing Present forms.

You're wrong. I did not *avoid* giving them; that would
mean that I considered giving them and then chose not to do
so. In fact I never considered giving them; the usual
principal parts were sufficient to make my point.

> So I suppose these forms are a problem for your claim.

You're a bit confused. *You* are the one making the
extraordinary claim; *I* am merely pointing out what is
obvious to anyone familiar with the Germanic languages.

> Otherwise I do not doubt you would have cited them.

In other words, you assume that I'm being dishonest. For
the record, I never deliberately suppress data in order to
support a hypothesis. Your accusation says rather more
about you than it does about me.

You have an unpleasant habit of offering gratuitous insults;
another recent example is 'Water looks more solid than your
brain' in response to a standard reconstruction (*wodr) that
you didn't even read correctly. Such behavior is contrary
to the list rules, which are posted regularly and include
the following:

Please avoid deliberate rudeness, aggressive language,
addressing the personalities of other members rather than
their arguments, and other forms of disruptive behaviour.

Brian