Re: Volcae and Volsci

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

>
> At 4:47:40 AM on Sunday, April 6, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 5:24:16 AM on Wednesday, April 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> 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 postulated entities from two to one.
>
> At the cost of an additional assumption, so there's no net
> reduction.

Adding assumptions is good, as Popper tells us.
Removing entities is good, as Occam tells us.
You got to learn to think straight, Brian.

>
> >>> 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
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> Nd 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?
>
> ('Upset' is inaccurate, but never mind.) I simply read
> what's there, though it probably helped that I know more
> about the history of English (and probably more about the
> social history of medieval and Early Modern England, for
> that matter).

You read what's there, but without your knowledge of etc you wouldn't
know what's there?

> You postulated motivations for which the
> story itself offers no evidence, based on hypotheses about
> the society for which there is no evidence -- rather the
> reverse, in fact.
>

No, I did the same you did, I assumed various motivations. As usual
you fall back on ex cathedra pronouncements when you have no criticism
of substance.

> [...]
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Since you continue to misuse the term to apply to a wide
> range of contact effects, it would appear that you do not.
>

Afrikaans has been called a creole by better linguists than both of
us, and you know that.


Torsten