From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57566
Date: 2008-04-17
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: 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>
> 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.
***
Patrick:
Whatever you may doubt, calling a phone palatovelar when the subject is what
is *k^ and what is not *k^ (therefore *k), one palatal, one velar, seems not
inappropriate at all.
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
How many times have people on this list suggested *H2 was a velar fricative?
If we mean to correctly term their presumed origin, we would say 'guttural'
since both pharyngals and laryngal are guttural.
The standard accepted view of the world was once that it was flat.
The obstinacy of the 'world' to correction, however, is well-known.
It does no one any credit to perpetuate errors.
***
> > 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.
***
ePatrick:
I precede the comments I address here rather than follow them.
Brian, you may be the finest mathematician since Pascal, but, without
meaning any disrespect, you have a tin ear when it comes to semantics.
To give just one example:
'departure' is 'ABGANG'
Under the several pages of equivalents for 'departure', BEOLINGUS, does not
once mention 'Ausbruch'.
Does not -bruch even give you a clue?
My undergraduate degree is in German.
Stick to math.
***
> 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'.
***
Patrick:
Yes, they certainly can.
***
> 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.
***
Patrick:
Sorry, Brian, but wrong again. I am following Pokorny.
If the common element *k^e:i- in two words meaning 'fast' does not persuade
you that *k^e:i- by itself, I am sure I cannot.
***
> > 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'.
***
Patrick:
What is 'more 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'.
>
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
I am not interested in 'roughly', Brian, and as a mathematician neither
should you be.
I am American but I hate the sloppy proletarian attitude in America that now
means that 'anything' is 'anything'.
We are delaing with people on this list who actually use the words in their
languages correctly, and pride themselves on it.
I wish to emulate them, not ...
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
Following the bouncing asterisk above.
***
> > And what would point us to *k^?
>
> <s'->, of course.
***
Patrick:
.......?
***
> [...]
>
> >>> 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.
>
> [...]
***
Patrick:
I do not overgeneralize when I suggest that Pokorny passed over an
underrepresented variant.
Perfectly legitimate without other evidence. But the evidence is there.
***
> >>>>> 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?
***
Patrick:
Surely, you do not mean to audaciously deny that some roots are preserved
only in compounds?
How shocking!
***
> >>> 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.
***
Patrick:
I am not inventing anything. I am interpreting what I see.
I have 15 essay on my website, and document *k^he:I- (actually its PL
parent) very fully. Like Arnaud, who never reads anything but his own
confetti, perhaps you have never read any either?
There is nothing arbitrary about anything I do. You simply do not know me at
all.
***
> >>>>> 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.
***
Patrick:
Please, Brian, I like you so please do not share your opinions about what
words mean.
***
> [...]
>
> >>>>>> 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.
***
Patrick:
Reading Pokorny, like translating German words, requires full understanding.
***
> >>>> 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
***
Patrick:
Did I say the math was wrong?
The problem is not _framed_ correctly so it can answer the question it asks.
And let us not get into that now.
We have enough on our plates. (slurp!)
***