Re: Volcae and Volsci

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

>
> At 5:24:16 AM on Wednesday, April 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 5:50:05 AM on Sunday, March 30, 2008, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 2:26:46 PM on Saturday, March 29, 2008, tgpedersen
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>>> No, what you want to do is present an example which
> >>>>> can't have been caused by a substrate.
>
> >>>> In your world I doubt that there is such a thing. Even
> >>>> in my world it would, I think, be very difficult to
> >>>> find such a thing. That's why your extreme reliance on
> >>>> substrates, like your reliance on invisible
> >>>> underclasses, is methodologically unsound.
>
> >>> I always relate underclasses to to substrates and
> >>> therefore to previous conquests
>
> >> I know. Since you don't otherwise appear to lack
> >> imagination, overcommitment to a theory seems the
> >> likeliest explanation of this reflex.
>
> > I relate underclass (or upperclass) to substrate because
> > 1) it reduces the number of variables in the claim,
>
> Postulating two shadowy entities and a relationship between
> them reduces the number of variables?

Postulating an identity (actually a historical continuity) between two
entities you already postulated reduces the number of postulaed
entities from two to one.

>
> > 2) it adds a falsifiable claim to a proposal of a substrate
>
> In practice it doesn't: in practice you're very willing to
> postulate an invisible underclass

As for the P-nam,es, even you are willing to concede there's a problem
there to be solved; those P-names recur in Friesian, and, to a lesser
degree, elsewhere in Germanic. There is such a thing as willful blindness.

> and motivations for which
> there's no evidence at all, as in the discussion of the
> Caxton 'eggs' story.

Erh, what? I'll think you'll have to go into more detail here. I
postulated motivations in the Caxton dialog, you postulated
motivations in the Caxton dialog, what is it about the fact that I
disagree with you that upsets you so?

> > 3) it's good practice; most people who propose substrates
> > do that
>
> For what it's worth, that has not been my experience.
>

How many articles about substrates in Northern Europe have you
actually read?

> [...]
>
> >> In other cases it's downright ludicrous, like your
> >> 'gradually germanized originally NWBlock speaking
> >> underclass' that finally shows up in 17th century
> >> English.
>
> > All the Germanic languages, with the exception of High
> > German and Icelandic have been heavily creolized,
>
> No. And until you learn what 'creolized' means, I can't
> even be bothered to read the rest.

I think I know what 'creolized' means. The two attempts to disprove
that central Germanic languages I've seen went like this:

1) They can't be creoles, since we have records of the development all
the way
ad 1) That's like saying paint won'ty dry if you watch it dry.

2) English can't be creole, because a similar development took place
in all the central Germanic languages.
ad 2) Which is why I extend the claim of a substrate to the area taken
up by the central Germani languages.

> [...]
>
> > No, your objection was that any claim that a substrate is
> > present is unfalsifiable.
>
> It was not.
>

Well, what is your position on substrates then? When are we permitted
to assume there was one?


Torsten