Re: [tied] Re: -leben/-lev/-löv and -ung-

At 2:04:23 PM on Saturday, December 8, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:

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

>> At 6:33:47 AM on Saturday, December 8, 2007, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

>> [...]

>>>> The data were given in Nr. 50231. If I remember correctly,
>>>> what I wrote there was a fairly close paraphrase/translation
>>>> of the original French.

>>> That would be:

>>> 'The original name, a derivative of the masculine personal
>>> name <Wacho>, can be seen in the forms <Wachonevillare>
>>> 8th c., <Vuachimvillare in pago Bononiensi> 954, and
>>> <Wachunvillers> 954. This was subsequently replaced by
>>> Latin <vastum>, OFr <gast> 'desolate, ravaged': <Wastum>
>>> 1107, <Guastum> 12th c., <Wast> 12th c.'

>>> So why can't the *vast- name not be original, but
>>> undocumented, here?

>> Lack of any reason to think so in the face of the evidence.
>> (And for all I know, there may even be something in the
>> historical record that would explain the recorded name
>> change.)

> 'There may be evidence in my favor that I don't know
> about'. You're not serious, are you?

Of course I'm serious: it's entirely possible that there is
independent evidence of an 11th century depopulation or
devastation of the place. It's also entirely possible that
the only evidence is the changed place-name. I don't really
care either way, and the observation obviously wasn't being
offered as evidence of anything: note the parentheses, the
'for all I know', and the 'even'. It merely occurred to me
in passing that this is a rare case in which independent,
non-linguistic evidence isn't entirely out of the question.

>> [...]

>>>> I didn't bother: Frank Verhoft dealt with it better
>>>> than I could have done. I have no problem with the
>>>> obvious interpretation of the data, namely, that
>>>> <gueux> is a borrowing of MDu. <guit>.

>> [...]

>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/33491

>> This one.

>>> Is this what you call 'dealt with'?

>> Yes. You've offered nothing remotely resembling a
>> compelling reason to discard the obvious inference from
>> the data.

> There is no compelling reason to discard steam trains
> either. They just don't do well compared to the
> competition.

Which makes them a poor analogy here.

> Your principle for evaluating theories is: 'if it ain't
> broke don't fix it'.

I merely require the fix to be a genuine improvement.

> I follow Popper in believing that the ruling theory
> shouldn't enjoy special protection.

You appear to go a good deal further than that, if not quite
to the point of 'if it's generally accepted, it must be
wrong'.

Brian