From: Rick McCallister
Message: 50926
Date: 2007-12-16
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz=== message truncated ===
> Jagodzinski"
> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
> >
> > ---- Original Message ----
> > From: tgpedersen
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:11 AM
> > Subject: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nighingale
> >
> > >>>> 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))
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >>>> 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.
> >
> > > That's right. That's why I asked you the
> question and why you
> > > didn't ask yourself the question.
> >
> > >> "Naturally" means that disappearing of initial
> sounds is not
> > >> regular in Altaic, however they occur in some
> words.
> >
> > > No it doesn't.
> >
> > > The latter statement states as a contingent
> fact, that
> > > disappearing of initial sounds is not regular in
> Altaic, however
> > > they occur in some words. But if you add
> 'naturally' in front of
> > > it, you are saying that this fact is derived
> from something else,
> > > some higher principle which you don't mention.
> >
> > >> 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.
> >
> > > That's your reason for putting statement 2). I
> still don't know
> > > what your reason was for preceding it with 1)
> 'naturally'.
> >
> > The main subject of this discussion is not the
> meaning of the word
> > "naturally" but the problem if there exist
> irregular phonetic
> > changes or not. And really, boring of side threads
> instead of the
> > main one might even make the reader confused.
>
> OK, so you don't want to answer the question.
>
>
> > Anyway, here is my explanation for you if you
> still have so much
> > troubles with understanding my words.
>
> I have no problem understanding your words.
> Occasionally I fail to
> understand why you put them together the way you do.
>
>
> > Webster's New Worlds Dictionary defines
> "naturally" as, among
> > others, "as one might expect" (and not
> "naturally", as you writes,
> > Torsten).
>
> OK, so when you use 'naturally' it means "as one
> might expect" and not
> "naturally".
>
>
> > The discussion was on irregular phonetic changes.
> I gave a list of
> > some phonetic changes in Altaic.
>
> So you did.
>
> > And I wrote that the cited chages are "naturally"
> irregular.
>
> So they are, according to you, 'irregular, as one
> might expect'.
>
>
> > The reader might expect that I had quoted them on
> purpose - even if
> > that was not stated literally.
>
> Most thing people say what they say on purpose. Why
> is that relevant here?
>
> > Instead, I wrote "naturally"
>
> Instead of what?
>
>
> > - to confirm that the examples had really been
> quoted with the
> > purpose to illustrate the thesis that irregular
> changes do exist.
>
> In order to confirm that you had quoted those words
> on purpose, you
> added the word 'naturally' in front of the next
> sentence?
>
>
> > If I had omitted that word, there would not have
> been any relation
> > between the list of quoted examples and the
> previous thread.
>
> ????
>
> > I had really thought that that would be read by
> people who know the
> > meaning of the word "naturally".
>
> I know the meaning of the word 'naturally'. I asked
> you why used it in
> that sentence.
>
> > But obviously I was wrong.
>
> No.
>
> > You, Torsten, did not realize that the English
> word "naturally"
> > means "as one might expect".
>
> How does my asking you why you are placing the word
> 'naturally' in
> front of a sentence lead you to the conclusion that
> I don't know what
> 'naturally' means?
>
> > But now you know it, I hope.
>
> Like before.
>
>
> > Nevertheless, I think that all is clear now, and I
> think the topic
> > is closed. EOT, like people write on popular
> mailing lists.
>
> You realize you can't account for your own
> convoluted