Re: Re[8]: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian M. Scott
>
> > The issue was :
> > Did Miguel actually read Martinet
> > as he claimed he did ?
>
> > I consider that "I wouldn't be surprised"
> > is itself a clear indication He did not.
>
> And you're wrong, because he was talking about _something_
> _that_Martinet_did_not_write_about_.
>
> One more time: the thought process by which one arrives at a
> hypothesis can be *very* different from the way one presents
> that hypothesis for public consumption. Miguel was talking
> about the former; what's in Martinet's published works is
> evidence only of the latter.
>
> Brian
>
> ============
>
> One more time : I disagree with your thought processes
> and your public conclusions.
> What you are saying about Martinet
> is complete speculation.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ================

***

The class of phenomena that inspired Martinet's theories was described in
his writing and quoted by you.

This class would certainly include <senex>, and if <senex> did not initiate
his thoughts on the matter, it certainly had to be one of the examples of
the phenomenon of which he was aware.

You are correct in saying that it is pure speculation which word in this
class actually may have first come to him but <senex> would have had to be a
quickly following later thought if not the actual first.

So, although Miguel speculated, it was informed speculation; and finally, no
one knows certainly what Martinet's thought processes actually were, so the
speculation (yours and Miguel's) cannot ever really be confirmed or
_refuted_.

What Martinet thought has an indirect but not a direct bearing on what he
wrote. He may well have had other thoughts before he actually put pen to
paper; and, men do not always describe their true motives in their writing.

To speculate about what Martinet "thought" before he wrote, therefore, has
_no_ real relationship to what Martinet actually "wrote".

And whether Miguel's speculation is literally right or wrong, it has no
bearing on the question of what Miguel or anyone else has read or not read.


Patrick