Re[4]: Horse Sense (was: [tied] Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?)

At 4:45:52 AM on Thursday, April 17, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> 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.

> Let us never correct anything!

I said nothing of the kind, and what I wrote cannot
reasonably be so interpreted. The middle of a substantive
argument is not the place to engage in a petty
terminological dispute unless (a) terminological confusion
is interfering with communication, (b) one is trying to
divert attention from the weakness of one's substantive
arguments, or (c) one is more interested in throwing every
available brick at one's opponent than in the substance of
the argument. I really doubt that (a) is the case here.

> Let us call velar fricatives 'laryngeals'!

The phonetic values of *h1, *h2, and *h3 (and any further
laryngeals that any may feel a need to postulate) are
uncertain; that 'laryngeal' is the standard, accepted term
for these phonemes is not.

> 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.

> 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.

The usual sense of <Aufbruch> is 'departure'; <wippend> is
'rocking, moving up and down, seesawing'; <in Bewegung
setzen> is simply 'to set in motion, to cause to move';
<schwanke hin und her> is 'sway to and fro'; <Eseltreiber>
is 'donkey driver'; <beunruhigt> is 'concerned, worried,
disturbed'; <werde bewegt> is 'to be moved'; <regt sich> is
'stirs, moves (oneself)'. Clearly none of these has any
strong association with 'fast' or 'sudden'; all, however,
fit nicely under a general heading 'to set in motion, to be
in motion'. I would say the same of <(er)wecken>: to awaken
someone is figuratively to set him in motion, and there is
no necessary implication of speed or suddenness.

As for 'heissen (= antreiben)', the word being glossed is ON
<heita> 'to call, give a name to; to call on one (to do
sthg.); to be called/named; to promise; to threaten',
cognate with OE <ha:tan> 'to command, order; to name, call;
to be called', Goth. <haitan> 'to call, name, order,
command, invite', etc.; any sense of 'threaten' is clearly
secondary and hence rather beside the point in any attempt
to determine the underlying sense of the root.

Finally, the block that I've set off with dashed lines and
which contains the great majority of legitimate 'fast' or
'sudden' senses belongs to a single word family in one
language, Greek, and thus exaggerates the number of such
glosses.

> I suppose any of these could be disputed but I think the
> semantics are clear. I consider 'sudden' movement
> intrinsically 'fast'.

Even allowing that extension doesn't save the claim.

[...]

>>>> 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?

[...]

>>> 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.

> I disagree.

Wishful thinking on your part: Pokorny's normal practice is
quite clear.

> 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.

In this case it's a good deal more persuasive than any of
the arguments that you've offered for your **k^he:- 'fast'.

>>> 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'.

> Then your German is not up to it either.

> 'in Bewegung setzen' does _not_ mean 'move'. It means 'set
> in motion',

As indeed I told you. If you cannot see that this is
*roughly* the same as the *transitive* sense of 'to move'
(or better, one of the transitive senses of 'to move'), your
understanding of the English verb is incomplete.

> with an implication of suddenness and speed.

No.

>>>>> 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^.

> What are you thinking of here: the languid poses of a slow
> ballet?

I'm reading what's written instead of distorting it to fit a
pet theory. See also the glosses of <ceST> at
<http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/>: 'to move the limbs,
move, stir', 'to make effort, exert one's self, struggle,
strive, be active'; 'to be busy or occupied with (acc.); to
act, do, perform, care for'; 'to prepare'; 'to cause to
move, set in motion, impel, drive'.

> What is meant is 'agitated motion of the limbs'.

I can find no evidence for this in any of the dictionaries
that I've consulted.

> And what would point us to *k^?

<s'->, of course.

[...]

>>> 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.

(This refers to Pokorny's *ske(:)i-, with variants in *sk^
and others.)

> I believe that is the wrong conclusion.

And so you over-generalize.

[...]

>>>>> 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.

> Where are they? Spell them out and I will make the attempt.

They're right there before your eyes in David's post. In
addition to pointing out yet again that you are inventing
root variants ad hoc, he has clearly exhibited a flaw in
your methodology: what you describe as 'snide sarcasm' is a
demonstration that your choice of associations is arbitrary.

>>>>> 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?

> A theory that has been published on the web for 10+ years
> can hardly be termed 'private'.

A very common sense of 'private' is 'personal, confined to
the individual'; I very much doubt that you're unfamiliar
with this sense or that you really didn't realize that it
was the one that I intended. It is your personal notion;
so far as I know, it is not accepted by any reputable
linguist.

[...]

>>>>>> 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-.

> Another one who knows what Pokorny knew.

No, just another one who can read what Pokorny wrote. And
if you claim Pokorny's support for your **e- 'grass', YOU
are engaging in mind-reading.

>>>> 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.

> It is on a par with Ringe's discredited math.

It avoids the error that I noted in at least one of Ringe's
papers on the subject, and as I pointed out last time, those
errors did not qualitatively affect Ringe's conclusions.
And please note that while I am not a statistician, I am a
mathematician and do have a basic familiarity with such
things.

Brian