From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57043
Date: 2008-04-08
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:41 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Priimary Stem Formants: =*H, -*i/y, *-u/w
> On 2008-04-08 04:00, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > Piotr, if you do not know this is sophistry, then I will be surprised.
> >
> > I said nothing about analyzable within PIE. I pointed only to a pattern
> > of
> > final elements in *CVC roots that were reminiscent of very common root
> > extensions added to *CVC.
> >
> > In order to 'relate' them, you must divide them. If you cannot divide
> > them,
> > they are not relatable.
> >
> > It is really that simple, and I believe you know it.
>
> The problem is only that you need some good independent evidence to
> justify your divisions. Otherwise you will remain the only person who
> sees them. It's all to easy to fool oneself into "seeing" a pattern
> among random data. It's just how our brain works -- it's a powerful
> pattern-recognizer, so it often recognizes a pattern that isn't there.
> Just look at the sky at night -- you will see Orion, Cassiopeia, the
> Plough (or Big Dipper, if you like) etc. -- you can almost see the lines
> linking the stars up into familiar shapes.
***
You are absolutely right.
***
> > My Goodness! Shades of the very poorest reconstruction methodology! That
> > is
> > what has made Proto-Caucasian such a pathetic enterprise.
> >
> > What would you imagine for the original: *gWeuiH2m?
***
Piotr,
I will bet they talk about clusters and simplifying them. Clusters are
dangerous devices.
***
> Hullo, Patrick, I'm here. That straw man isn't me.
>
> > You can pick and choose what will be "retained', and what will suffer
> > execution at another Picaud's Law.
> >
> > Frankly, I had not expected this as an argument from you; I missed it in
> > the
> > article of I would have called you on it.
***
I am sorry. I would really like to get back to your article because I
thought it was really outstanding. I am always working on new projects, and
I have to read quickly, but no excuse really for missing it.
***
> Because there is no such argument there, or in my previous posting.
>
> > There is _absolutely_ no evidence for a variably resolved cluster that
> > violates every rule we know of PIE structure.
> >
> > The constituent parts of *pla(:)H-, as you well know, would be likelier
> > to
> > be *pele- and -*H(2).
> >
> > But in this particular case, 'set into motion', my belief would be that
> > the
> > pre-PIE form was *pAlá:-, naturally long. But let us not get into that
> > question yet.
>
> What root are you talking about? I cited *pleh1- 'fill' just as an
> example of a triconsonantal root that cannot be further analysed given
> our present knowledge. I didn't want to suggest that it was related to
> *pleu- 'swim' or anything else.
***
Sorry, I thought you meant 'spread out'.
For 'fill', I also think the vowel is originally long: *p(A)le:-. So I would
consider it biconsonantal.
***
> Comparative analysis is like a microscope. It allows you to see
> historically underlying fine structure in synchronically indivisible
> words. For example, you can blow up Eng. young until you can see old
> morphological divisions: *[h2ju-h3n.]-k^ó-. It shows that the modern
> sequence of three phonemes [jVN] reflects no fewer than three PIE
> morphemes. To complicate matters further, the internal divisions have
> become so blurred that the modern vowel straddles two morphemes and the
> final velar nasal reflects *n and *k^ at the same time. Needless to say,
> in order to achieve such precision and to convince other people that the
> etymology is correct you have to process an enormous amount of data --
> actually, the reconstruction above summarizes the work of several
> generations of IE linguists.
***
Again, absolutely right.
But I think that the process often leads to overcomplication.
I must say, you really know how to select out the most problematical
examples.
Your analysis above is greatly appreciated. It firmed up some things in my
mind. I see the ultimate *CVC root as *HAyA-, 'wet', to which -*wA was
added -> *Hyéw- -> *yéu- = 'wetted all over', referring to the state at
birth.
> Like other types of microscope, the comparative method has its
> limitations. We cannot reconstruct ad infinitum because the longer the
> range of comparison, the scarcer the data and the worse its quality. You
> still see shadows of patterns, like constellations in the sky, but you
> can't be sure they are not optical illusions.
>
> Piotr
***
Sorry to be so agreeable, but you are so right.
Now, the sponsor's plug.
But when there are a number of distantly related languages, although the
traces are faint, trajectories can be drawn which pinpoint certain
possibilities.
Patrick
***