Re[6]: Horse Sense (was: [tied] Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?)

At 4:56:13 PM on Thursday, April 17, 2008, Patrick Ryan wrote:

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

>> 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.

> 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.

> How many times have people on this list suggested *H2 was
> a velar fricative?

Or possibly uvular. Quite often. For what it's worth, I
don't find the idea at all implausible. This does not
affect the truth of my previous statement.

> If we mean to correctly term their presumed origin, we
> would say 'guttural' since both pharyngals and laryngal
> are guttural.

Altogether beside the point. 'Laryngeal' is the accepted
technical term for these reconstructed phonemes, and
everyone with the slightest knowledge of IE historical
linguistics knows that in this context it isn't to be
understood in its etymological sense. Vomplaining that it
was an inappropriate choice is as pointless as complaining
that the technical terms 'irrational number' and 'atom' are
inappropriate; insisting that it must be used in its
etymological sense is a version of the etymological fallacy.

> The standard accepted view of the world was once that it
> was flat.

At least in the western world that hasn't been standard
accepted view amongst the educated in over 2000 years.

[...]

>>>>> 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.

> 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.

<splork!!>

> To give just one example:

> 'departure' is 'ABGANG'

> Under the several pages of equivalents for 'departure',
> BEOLINGUS, does not once mention 'Ausbruch'.

The word in question is <Aufbruch>, not <Ausbruch>. And as
anyone familiar with the use of bilingual dictionaries
should be able to tell you, you ought to be looking up the
German word, not its English translation.

> Does not -bruch even give you a clue?

The element <-bruch> might indeed mislead me if I didn't
know what the word actually means.

By the way, this has nothing to do with my ear for
semantics; it's to do with my knowledge of German.

[...]

>>>>> 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.

> Sorry, Brian, but wrong again. I am following Pokorny.

You are not, as anyone may see who takes the trouble to
look; you are imposing your own interpretation on his data
and classification and then imputing that interpretation to
him. Irrespective of the merits of the interpretation, it's
yours, not Pokorny's.

[...]

>>>>> 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.

> I am not interested in 'roughly', [...]

Nor as a rule am I; why do you suppose I gave my own
translation of Pokorny's gloss? If you go back to the
original post, however, you will find that I was merely
pointing out that hassling David over this particular
translation was unjustified, because his translation, while
not one that I'd use, is not wrong in any way that matters
to the point under discussion at the time.

[...]

>>>>> 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.

> Following the bouncing asterisk above.

To borrow your own phraseology, you have a tin ear when it
comes to semantics. Or a very selective eye when reading
glosses. The bouncing asterisk does absolutely nothing to
support your contention.

>>> And what would point us to *k^?

>> <s'->, of course.

> .......?

What's the question? The outcomes of *k^ and *k in Sanskrit
aren't exactly mysteries.

[...]

>>>>>> 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.

> 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?

You know that I've read at least parts of your site: I
commented on them in some detail a couple of years ago.
(For that matter, however peculiar I may find some of his
interpretations, it's clear that Arnaud has read a great
deal, if not on your site.)

You still haven't addressed David's methodological
objection, which is real.

[...]

>>>>>> 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.

> Did I say the math was wrong?

Yes, unless by 'the math' you merely mean the arithmetic.

> The problem is not _framed_ correctly so it can answer the
> question it asks.

But it is, to a useful first approximation.

Brian