From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57515
Date: 2008-04-17
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:42 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Horse Sense (was: [tied] Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?)
> At 8:49:09 PM on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
> >>> <liberty@...> wrote:
>
> >>>> No, there's no steady association. Pokorny lists only
> >>>> *k^e:ibh- and *k^e:igh- beginning with that sequence
> >>>> and meaning 'quick', but no *k^(H)e-.
>
> > - edit -
>
<snip>
> > First, there is no such thing as a palato-velar.
>
> Apt or not, it's a familiar term for the series that
> includes *k^ and *g^, whatever they may have been in
> phonetic fact. Such terminological prissiness merely gets
> in the way of any substantive argument that you may have.
***
Patrick:
Let us never correct anything!
Let us call velar fricatives 'laryngeals'!
Let us perpetuate stupidity into eternity!
***
> > Second, the examples given by Pokorny given under the
> > heading *ke:i- are, in the clear majority, referring to
> > 'fast' or 'violent' motion. If anyone cares to refresh
> > himself in Pokorny, they will be able to see that this is
> > correct.
>
> It isn't. Barring accidental omissions, what follows is a
> complete list of the glosses in the article:
>
> gehe weg, fahre
> folgte nach, durchstreifte
> *Eseltreiber
> beweglich
> *werde bewegt, *erschüttert, gehe
> *schwanke hin und her
> *setze in Bewegung, *treibe
> *wecke, *erwecke
> schicken, senden
> reize, necke
> *bestürmen, *anfallen
> *in Bewegung setzen, *regemachen, herbeirufen
> *schnell
> in Bewegung setzen, kommen lassen, vorladen
> *ganz, stark bewegt, *beunruhigt, in Angst und Gefahr
> gesamt, sämtlich
> invecta
> exseri
> *heissen (= antreiben), befehlen, anrufen, nennen
> rufen
> bewegt, *wippend
> Bachstelze
> *lebhaft
> bewegen[*]
> bewegt die Glieder, ist in Bewegung
> Bewegung, Gebärde
> *regt sich, geht fort
> setzt sich in Gang, Marsch
> marschierte
> *Unternehmung, Bemühung (work is characterized as 'fast' activity)
> Tun, Handeln, Wirken
> Tat, Werk
> *Aufbruch
> *ich breche auf, reise ab
> ich ging
> *setze in rasche, heftige Bewegung
> *eile, bin erregt
> *eilte
> *getrieben
> in Gang gekommen
> *in Eile
> *bewege mich rasch oder heftig
> *treibt
> *die Völker zum Kampfe antreibend
> *betreibe
> beschäftige mich anhaltend mit etwas
> das hölzerne Rad
> Radreifen
>
> [*] 'vielleicht nur Grammatikererfindung'
>
> No such clear majority is to be found; only Gk. (the last
> 13 items) shows any real tendency in that direction.
***
Patrick:
In my opinion, an incorrect characterization.
I have gone back over your list (and, by the way, thank you for creating a
medium for an organized, logical analysis of the situation), and marked with
an asterisk those I think support my claim.
I suppose any of these could be disputed but I think the semantics are
clear. I consider 'sudden' movement intrinsically 'fast'.
***
> > So, this is the second misrepresentation.
>
> > I called attention (but, of course, you missed it) to the
> > condition that I would be dealing with roots. The
> > correctly reconstructed root here is *k^he:-. The -*i is a
> > root extension.
>
> So you say. In fact Watkins takes the root to be *keih2-
> 'to set in motion', and his gloss fits the data in Pokorny
> considerably better than yours. It also agrees with half of
> Pokorny's gloss (see below).
***
Patrick:
Ah, the 'laryngeals' to the rescue!
Yes, I do say. PIE root: 1 or 2 morae.
*kh^e: is the root.
***
> [...]
>
> >> Moreover you may not even claim 'fast' for *k^e:i-, for
> >> we don't know that it yields any such meaning without the
> >> addition of 'bh' or 'gh', as we find it. If it did,
> >> Pokorny would already have made a separate entry of it,
> >> as he wasn't shy about that sort of thing.
>
> > Then Pokorny has organized his dictionary entries all
> > wrong, has he not?
>
> > If it tastes bad with sugar, and it tastes bad with salt,
> > the chances are very good that it tastes bad.
>
> > You want to outguess Pokorny. You have not got a chance.
>
> You're the one trying to outguess Pokorny by lumping his
> *k^e:i-bh- and *k^e:i-gh- entries in with his *ke:i- entry.
> As David pointed out, Pokorny wasn't at all shy about
> lumping; if he'd thought that there was any serious argument
> for combining the three, at the very least he'd have
> mentioned the possibility.
***
Patrick:
I disagree. Pokorny did a magnificent job with what he had but even in the
most exacting work, subjective judgments must be made.
Argument by omission is also not very persuasive.
***
> > If Pokorny meant 'move', he would have written 'bewegen'
> > not 'in Bewegung setzen'. How well do you understand
> > German?
>
> Pokorny has 'in Bewegung setzen, in Bewegung sein'; that's
> 'to set in motion, to be in motion'. The first is roughly
> the same as transitive 'to move', and the second is
> intransitive 'to move'.
***
Patrick:
Then your German is not up to it either.
'in Bewegung setzen' does _not_ mean 'move'. It means 'set in motion', with
an implication of suddenness and speed.
***
> >>> I believe this is properly reconstructed as *k^(h)e:i-;
> >>> and without going into Nostratic data to support the
> >>> point, the semantic connections alone with *k^e:i-bh-
> >>> and *k^e:i-gh- should suggest the possibility of an
> >>> initial palatal *k^ for Pokorny's *ke:i-.
>
> >> So you feel free to change one construction to make it
> >> more like another to which you, and you alone, are sure
> >> it is related? It was reconstructed with a plain velar
> >> for a reason, and you're not entitled to reassign it to
> >> force it to fit your personal theory.
>
> >> *ke:i- begins with a different sound than *k^e:ibh- and
> >> *k^e:igh-, and has a different meaning, and that is all
> >> there is to that.
>
> > I guess your eyes got tired before they came to Old Indian
> > <cé:s.t.ati>.
>
> It's glossed 'bewegt die Glieder, ist in Bewegung'; that's
> 'moves the limbs, is in motion' -- nothing to do with the
> 'schnell, heftig' ('quick, hasty, violent') gloss of
> *k^e:ibh- and *k^e:igh-. And of course the <c> points to
> *k, not *k^.
***
Patrick:
What are you thinking of here: the languid poses of a slow ballet?
What is meant is 'agitated motion of the limbs'.
And what would point us to *k^?
***
> >> There is no "steady association" between *k^(H)e and the
> >> meaning 'fast'.
>
> > On the contrary.
>
> If there is, you've altogether failed to demonstrate it.
***
Patrick:
Wrong. SEE asterisks above.
***
> >>> As for it being an unvoiced aspirate, *k^h rather than
> >>> *k, anyone who has read Pokorny will be familiar with
> >>> reconstructions like 1. and 2. *(s)p(h)el- where the
> >>> notation indicates that the root occurs with or without
> >>> *s-mobile, and without or without *(h).
>
> >> Pokorny often has a legitimate reason for such a lumping,
> >> and for which he offers real cognates as proof. You have
> >> nothing comparable for your 'k(^)(h)e(:)(i)', which is no
> >> more than a way to secure as many escape routes as you
> >> possibly can.
>
> > Pokorny lists *ske/e:i-, 'cut'.
>
> > He then goes on to mention the word is attested also with
> > *sk^, skh, sk^h.
>
> Yes: _he_goes_on_to_mention_the_variation_, and his data
> explain why he does so. But there is no such comment in the
> *ke:i- article.
***
Patrick:
'mention' perhaps should have been simply 'list',
Point taken.
***
> > What you might pick up from this is that lengthened vowels
> > can be shortened; palatals and velars can interchange.
>
> You might; I conclude only that either *this* root had such
> variants, or Pokorny has conflated at least two roots.
>
***
Patrick:
I believe that is the wrong conclusion.
If you still maintain otherwise, define the differences.
***
> [...]
>
> > Obviously, you are unfamiliar with Pokorny's *(s)kek-,
> > ;jump, lively motion'; this is the simple reduplication of
> > *k^he:- with loss of palatalization and aspiration, and,
> > in this case vowel length;
>
> According to you.
>
> > and how would you explain OI <khajati>? Oh yes, stick in a
> > 'laryngeal'.
>
>
>
>
> >>> Thus, I think the the possibility of an unpreserved
> >>> aspirated voiceless stop in *ke:i- is measurable; and I
> >>> reconstruct *k^He:i-. The root extension -*i is what
> >>> transforms *k^he-, '*deer', into 'fast.
>
> >> There is no *k^he- meaning 'deer' upon which to make such
> >> a transformation.
>
> > I have explained this also. *k^em- (*k^he:m-), hornless',
> > refers to the 'hind'.
>
> But we don't buy this oddball interpretation in the first
> place. It runs completely counter to the evidence. Thus,
> there's no point offering it as justification.
***
Patrick:
Oddball or not, I still maintain it.
***
> >>> I propose that early PIE words for 'deer', like our
> >>> 'hind', contained the segment *k^(h)e- so that *k^em-,
> >>> 'hornless', should be regarded as a generalization of
> >>> 'hind' rather than 'hind' being derived from 'hornless'.
>
> >>> The sense 'fast' is the characterization of any 'deer';
> >>> it can be augmented by derivative -*y as in *k^he:i- but
> >>> is unaugmented in words like *ken-, 'exert one's self',
> >>> where both palatalization and aspiration have not been
> >>> reconstructed: properly *k^(h)e(:)n-.
>
> >> 'k^(h)e(:)n' means 'k^he:n', or 'k^hen', or 'k^e:n', or
> >> 'k^en'. Again you try to secure as much wiggle room for
> >> yourself as possible.
>
> > It is you wiggling not I.
>
> David is quite correct: you're allowing yourself a great
> deal of latitude in varying segments to get the matches that
> you want.
***
Patrick:
I realize referencing variations will disturb some but I cannot avoid it.
I could not have come up was *ken- as a candidate to be included solely on
the PIE evidence, which is virtually non-existent, but on extra-PIE
cognates. Being an American in a country with a degenerated work-ethic,
'work' would first of all have suggested 'slow' to me.
***
> >>>> This is your semantic-chain game again, this time going
> >>>> from 'fast' to 'deer' to 'hind' to 'hornless'.
>
> >>> As usual, you twist my words to serve your own rhetoric.
>
> >> Twisting words isn't something I _ever_ do, so you are
> >> lying when you say 'as usual'.
>
> > You are a liar about lying, which is the usual pattern.
>
> David is correct on both counts. I have never seen him
> twist words, and you *are* playing silly buggers with the
> semantics again.
***
Patrick:
Brian, I thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent criticism of my
hypothesis. This is what I had hoped to get - not an insulting diatribe from
David.
But, I cannot accept your judgment on 'twisting'.
***
> >>> I _do_ suggest a semantic connection between 'deer' and
> >>> 'fast'; the connection with 'hornless' is through
> >>> *k^(h)e(:)m-, 'hind',
>
> >> There is no *k^hem-, *k^he:m-, or *k^e:m- meaning 'hind',
> >> only *k^em-.
>
> >>> not *k^he:-, 'deer'.
>
> >> There is no *k^he:- 'deer', or do you derive that from
> >> Pokorny's *k^ei- 'to lie down', on the basis that deer
> >> lie down at least once a day, or do you derive that from
> >> Pokorny's *k^ei- 'a k. of dark colour', on the basis that
> >> some deer are dark, or do you derive that from Pokorny's
> >> *k^e, for which see *ak^- 'to eat', on the basis that
> >> deer eat?
>
> > I knew you would revert to snide sarcasm.
>
> But you didn't answer the legitimate objections.
***
Patrick:
Where are they? Spell them out and I will make the attempt.
***
> >>> Do we not sometimes say: 'he's as fast as a deer!'?
>
> >> Well I don't, but I'm sure somebody does. I am likewise
> >> fully convinced that deer lie down, that some deer are
> >> dark colored, and that all deer eat, but so what?
>
> > The slot was filled. 'Bears' were named for their 'lying
> > down' = 'hibernation'.
>
> Another private theory?
***
Patrick:
A theory that has been published on the web for 10+ years can hardly be
termed 'private'.
The circumstance that you have not read it alters nothing. Literally
thousands have.
***
> >> It's a neat trick yours: when one of your roots is shown
> >> to be fabricated, you just create three more to "prove"
> >> it real, and when each of those is exposed in its turn,
> >> you invent still more.
>
> > "fabricated"??? Am I a forger?
>
> To fabricate is to create, to make, and you're certainly
> creating roots that exist only in your imagination.
>
> [...]
***
Patrick:
To me, recovery is not fabrication.
***
> >>>> Moreover, why not follow the shorter route available to
> >>>> you, from *k^em- in its properly reconstructed meaning
> >>>> 'hornless'? Horses are similiar to cattle and deer in
> >>>> many ways, yet always hornless, and the insertion of an
> >>>> 'e' and the elimination (or conversion to 'w'?) of 'm'
> >>>> surely involves much less voodoo than converting 'aira'
> >>>> to 'e'.
>
> >>> If your data was correct, yes. But GIGO, from 'aira' the
> >>> route is tortuous; from *ai-ra:, as I have demonstrated
> >>> above, it is far less problematical.
>
> >> No, because we have 'aira:' alone, or 'ai-ra:' if you
> >> prefer, with the meaning 'grass', not 'ai'.
>
> > It is Pokorny's segmentation, not mine.
>
> It also makes no difference to David's point. Whether
> Pokorny's segmentation is right or wrong, or for that matter
> whether his reconstruction of the root is right or wrong, it
> is clearly the full *aira:- that underlies the material
> offered in support of the root, NOT *ai-, let alone **e-.
***
Patrick:
Another one who knows what Pokorny knew.
***
> [...]
>
> >>> It is like when we propose *d in Language A -> *t in
> >>> Language B. The first step is pure speculation.
> >>> Additional speculation either confirms or denies the
> >>> original speculation,
>
> >> It's not additional speculation that confirms the first.
> >> That's ridiculous. It is sets of systematic sound
> >> correspondences in numbers larger than likely to occur by
> >> random chance. See the article 'How likely are chance
> >> resemblances between languages?' at
> >> http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm .
>
> > I saw it years ago. Total garbage.
>
> No, it isn't. It's a bit oversimplified, partly of
> necessity and perhaps partly for the intended audience, but
> it's basically sound.
***
Patrick:
It is on a par with Ringe's discredited math.
***
> > Like Ringe-around-the Rosie.
>
> At least one of Ringe's papers on the same subject contains
> some real errors, but even in it his results are
> qualitatively correct.
>
> Of course those whose pet ideas rely on finding a very
> modest number of very loose matches have a hard time
> accepting the fact that Mark and Ringe are demonstrating.
>
> Brian
***
Patrick:
Once again, thank you, Brian.
***