Re: swallow vs. nighingale

----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:49 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nighingale

Sorry that I cannot continue with this interesting discussion but my free
time is very short in these days. Now only few problems, nota bene less
interesting but with more importance.

>> A short "leap aside", if you please. I perfectly know that this is a
>> list on IE, not Nostratic, but I only want to show several examples
>> of irregular development of initial groups which is the subject
>> here. This irregular development is documented well in Altaic, and
>> especially in Mongolian. Only some examples:

>> u ~ 0: Mongolian usu - Turkish su (< sub) "water" (cf. also Buriat
>> dialectal (so: Mongolian) hub ~ sub "river..." (adjective))
>> g ~ 0: Mongolian guc^ "30", gurban "3" - Turkish üç "3"
>> b ~ 0: Mongolian ulaan "light red" - Russian borrowed (from
>> unidentified source) bulanyj "light red"
>> ö ~ 0: Buriat ödör "day" - dialectal dör
>> ü ~ 0: Buriat üsöön "scarce in number" - Mongolian cöön (the same)
>> etc.
>>
>> There exist much more such examples. Naturally such disappearings of
>> initial sounds are not regular in any of cited languages.

> Why 'naturally'?

Dear Torsten, I wrote "naturally" because I think so. And I think so because
of the knowledge I have. I really hope that you do not understand why
"naturally", and that your question really was not to be provocative. Sorry,
I do not like quarrels. We may be of different opinions but it does not
means that we must provocate one another.

Anyway, I would never ask such a question because the situation seems to me
clear. Obviously not to you.

"Naturally" means that disappearing of initial sounds is not regular in
Altaic, however they occur in some words. It was a notice for those who have
little knowledge on Altaic. If disappearing had been regular, I would not
have put it as the argument. And if anyone else had put such examples as an
argument, I would have guessed that the examples must illustrate some
irregular changes. There would not have been another possibility unless my
opponent had been schizophrenic or he had not thought logically.

I would really prefer more concrete questions or counterarguments instead of
such ambiguous or insinuating questions.

For example, if you think that disappearing of initial sounds was regular in
Altaic, give an example instead. Or better give a book whose author states
that he has found the rules - Altaic languages are not part of the IE
family, and I really would not want to continue this interesting disscussion
here.

All I wanted was to show that irregular disappearing of initial sounds is
present in other languages than IE as well. If no examples were known or
discussed in the literature, we should consider seriously the discussed
hypothesis that some birds names in some IE languages are borrowings from
some substrate.

But as I showed, such examples are known also outside the IE family, and the
presence of "fleeting a-" cannot be taken as a serious argument for such a
substrate.

>> They only happen in some, particular words, and - to tell the truth
>> - their reason is unknown.

> Russian bulany is borrowed from an unidentified source (language), and
> we shouldn't introduce unknown languages? Nice.

I did not think that my English is so bad. But, you obviously do not
understand, or, you are trying to provocate me. Once again, I do not like it
and will not continue this way.

First, your notice has nothing to do with the citation you give. Second, the
source of Russian "bulany" is a Mongolian language, but we cannot name the
source precisely. I hope you know that thare are many Mongolian languages.
In other words; we know that the source was Mongolian, and so it is not as
unknown as it is for you.

Once again, please stop this game. I do not believe that an average educated
person would not understand the difference between an unknown source (in
addition; based on very doubtful foundation) and unknown language from among
a known language family.

>> This is not the right place to discuss it in details, and I do not
>> want to do it.

> This is exactly the place to discuss it, if you want to use it as
> evidence.

No Torsten, stop teaching me such lessons. It is not the place as Altaic
languages are not IE. Again, you act as if you have not understood my
obviously broken English. And your style of discussion is also not the
correct one. Once again: you want to discuss, you present counterarguments.

>> And the same I believe that Italian rondine (yes, let's go back to
>> our IE-an yard) is not borrowed from substrate but developped
>> irregularly from Latin hirundinem.

> It's a free world. You can choose to believe anything you want.

I stated that I believe that Italian rondine is NOT borrowed from substrate
but developped irregularly from Latin hirundinem. Your arrogant notice about
the free world and my beliefs instead of a speaking to the point may prove
one of two things:

1) either you believe that Italian rondine IS another word taken from the
mythical bird substrate language,
2) or you once again try to irritate me - you share my point of view but you
chose not to confess it.

>> The same reason causes that I cannot just believe that Latin merula
>> and Gmc. amVsl- are borrowings (which does NOT mean that I reject
>> such a possibility!).

> You can't believe it, but you won't reject the possibility? This gets
> mysteriouser and mysteriouser.

We have problems with the square of opposition, are we?

I am convinced that a discussion on such a low level simply lacks any sense.
Telling the truth, I have never supposed that I will meet a person with such
problems here. It is really very pity that I must explain such obvious
things.

1. I can believe that they are borrowings = I am sure of it, they certainly
are borrowings.
2. I cannot believe that they are borrowings = I am not sure of it, they may
be borrowings or not, I do not know.
3. I can believe that they are not borrowings = I am sure of it, they are
not borrowings.
4. I cannot believe that they are not borrowings = I am not sure of it, they
may be borrowings or not, I do not know.

Personally I think that it is a waste of time to discuss with somebody who
cannot see the difference between 2 and 3. It is sad but true. The fact is
that Torsten attacked me but all what he has managed to prove was that he
does not know elementary logic.

I see no sense in continuing with a person whom I must explain such
elementary and obvious things as that. Once again: I cannot just believe
that Latin merula
and Gmc. amVsl- are borrowings means that I do not see evidence for this
supposition, nothing more and nothing less.

In order to aknowledge that the presence of fleeting a- is a piece of
evidence for the presence of the bird substrate language, we would have to
show that:

a) there does not exist a simpler explanation of the observed phenomenon,
b) a similar phenomenon cannot be observed in other instances, explained
without the need of the substrate.

These are fundaments of science. All the rest is just fantasies, not
science.

And we:

a) know simpler explanations (a- may be a result of false division of words,
a trace of an laryngeal, the lack of a- may be a result of irregular
development which is so common etc.),
b) can show similar examples which have other explanations than a loan from
unknown substrate (a good example is Italian rondine).

>> >> I see virtually no reason to suppose that "a bird language", a
>> >> postulated source for many bird names in western Indo-European
>> >> languages, ever existed.
>
>> > Obviously you don't.
>
>> No evidence = no reason. Irregularities are no evidence, as you can
>> see now (I hope).

> Irregularities makes most people

So, will we vote what is true and what is false?

> prefer the simpler option that the
> word is a loan,

Nonsense. Such opinion would be simpler if we could show the source. We
could not show the source for Italian rondine (if it would a borrowing) and
this is why we accept is as an example of an irregularity, contrary to what
Torsten tells. There is no reason not to accept that also merula and other
examples are not borrowings. This is what we call analogy.

Sorry you do not understand it. Sorry you do not like to use it. Sorry that
your way of thinking has nothing to do with science so.

>> >> Of course it might have existed - but we could not prove it then.
>> >> The observed irregularities are too weak evidence,
>
>> > But you just ruled out the irregularities as evidence by claiming
>> > they were caused by something else? How can you then consider
>> > using them as evidence?
>
>> They are not evidence. Exactly! Irregularities are not evidence, so
>> only because of their presence no one should believe in borrowings
>> from substrate.

> Do you ever read what you write? Hello-o?

Enough of your insolence. Is such a style of discussion normal in your
country? Sorry, I come from a more cultural place.

> Are they weak evidence (thus
> evidence) or no evidence?

TOO WEAK EVIDENCE means NO EVIDENCE, and it does not mean EVIDENCE.

You are not able to distinguish between "week evidence" and "too weak
evidence". I see no sense to continue. End of discussion with you. And a
good advice: stop cavilling at people, make a break with linguistics and
learn some logic first. And some rules of discussion.

>> No evidence that a thing exists does not mean evidence that this
>> thing does not exist. I thought it is obvious for everyone. And you,
>> are not you convinced?

> Why makes you think I would doubt that triviality?

You really don't know? Here is what makes me think so: your question "You
can't believe it, but you won't reject the possibility?".

I can't believe = I see no evidence that a thing exists. The triviality is
that it does not mean evidence that this thing does not exist, just as
Torsten said. It does not mean evidence that this thing does not exist, that
is why I won't reject it. Torsten terms it triviality, and it does not stop
him to ask me such stupid questions...

And the final problem: what for has Torsten done all this unnecessary
quarrel? For satisfaction to convince my arguments? Has he really been
succeeded?





___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html