From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55540
Date: 2008-03-20
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> Arnaud, I have the feeling that you may be too young to actually remember
> (which is not quite the same thing as just reading about it) the storm of
> opposition that was raised against the 'laryngeal' theory, which is
> incidentally idiotically named (by, I wonder who?), when it first gained
> prominence.
>
> ============
> Hermann Moeller is the first to have used the word "laryngeal" in 1911.
> I shall very immodestly refer to my own article :
> http://w3.ens-lsh.fr/llma/sommaires/LLMA_7_02_Fournet.pdf
> p11 et 12
>
> I hope I can remain young as long as possible,
> but you know, the odds are against me.
>
> Arnaud
> ==============
>
> You would simply not believe the absolute foutaise (here it is quite
> appropriate) that was written by supposedly intelligent men to justify the
> specific characteristics of 'coloring'. Incroyable!
>
> To a certain extent, this has been perpetuated to this day in sterile
> discussions of what 'laryngeal' is or is not palatal or velar or laryngal
> or
> pharyngal, stop or fricative or approximative, voiced or unvoiced - all
> couched in gossamer speculation of the most improbable tapestry.
>
> Like a spider on LSD!
> ============
> This is why I believe in good old comparative work
> with PAA "lots of" laryngeal stuff.
>
> I'm very sceptical about "learned" reasoning,
> although it's at least worth reading.
> This is why I always try to check if PIE reconstructions
> withstand external comparison.
> If it does, then I buy it. Otherwise, I consider it dubious.
>
> Typically, the case of *syw-H1.
> Dubious H1.
> All the more so, as it results in a rare 4-C root :
> *s_z_b- Plus extra -H1- !!
>
> Arnaud
> ============
>
> As for your pessimism for the success of "truth" in science, it is part of
> the duty of responsible experts to subject any change in the paradigm to
> the
> severest scrutiny. And this is to be applauded!
>
> If a new idea cannot overcome these hurdles, it is rightfully rejected
> until
> emended or presented by a better spokesman for it.
>
> My only fear is that I am personally inadequate to present the theory
> compellingly enough for it to become accepted because I am sure that
> someone, someday will be.
>
> When you criticize my theory, I interpret that as a criticism of not so
> much
> the theory as my explanation of it.
>
> Not a plea for sympathy, just facts, ma'am, nothing but the facts.
>
> Patrick
>
> ==================
>
> I suppose my usually straighforward and terse expression
> plus a couple of undiplomatically worded mails
> may have led you to wrong conclusions about me.
> I am not at all dogmatic nor narrow-minded.
>
> I believe in a hyper-laryngeal phonology for PIE
> and orthodox PIE falls too short for me.
> Your theory is headed in the direction
> I don't believe in.
> So I don't consider it worth investigating too long.
> And I blame you for writing it in such a system
> that I get headache after one line.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ============
>
>
>
>