From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57631
Date: 2008-04-18
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:07 PM
Subject: Re[6]: Horse Sense (was: [tied] Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?)
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> [...]
***
Patrick:
There is really no point in pursuing this but I will say it once anyway.
The choice of different words to describe an event, even if literally
synonymous, convey different nuances. <Abgang> is quite neutral; <Aufbruch>
conveys a nuance of suddenness.
***
> >>>>> 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.
***
Patrick:
Yes, that is true.
***
> [...]
>
> >>>>> 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.
***
Patrick:
But that _is_ the point. Sloppy translation like losing hyphens that
indicate segmentation is a dishonest way of prejudicing the question. When I
am trying to distinguish between original and secondary palatals as opposed
to velars, calling the phones SEEKS to muddle the issue. Are you too
innocent to see this?
***
> [...]
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> [...]
***
Patrick:
Well, Brian, you are forcing me to say this by pressing this issue.
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?
Here is the paragraph again, cleaned up for easier reading.
It is purely a rhetorical attack.
1) I have repeated stated that *k^he:- is the primary root. To ask if I
derive it from anything is to distort what I have said. And attempt to muddy
the waters.
Rightly or wrongly I believe the semantic direction is 'deer' -> 'fast' not
'X' -> 'deer'.
I have made this clear *many* times.
You have read this, too, so not knowing he is distorting this is on your
shoulders, too.
2) the whole point of what I have been maintaining is that there are
reflexes of PIE voiceless aspirates that are not identified as such in PIE.
If *k^ei-, 'lie down', was reconstructed with an aspirate (**k^hei-) or
lengthened vowel (**k^e:i-) there might be grounds for connecting it with
*k(h)e(:)-
3) to think that our ancestors would have derived 'deer' from 'lie down' or
'lie down' from 'deer' is to show contempt for them. They associated ideas
that, for them, at least, were salient and characteristic.
If you think semantic flow works this way, then you are also deficient in
understanding semantics. 'Lying down' is a casual and not unique
circumstance for a deer; 'being fast' can be legitimately said to
characterize the deer.
3) to connect 'lie down' with 'dark color' is meant only to ridicule.
I would not think that any language spoken by sane men has made such a
connection!
4) since the challenge was concerning the identifiability of two PIE
*k^(h)e(:)- and *k^e-, 'gray, shadow, other', to try to imply a connection
between them is to negate the question altogether.
And you should know this, too.
5) to suggest that I should worry about final *k^ in *ak^- at all is again
meant to ridicule rather than to honestly question. If I believe (initial)
*k^(h)e:- is the primary root, how could I derive ANYTHING from *ak^-?
This, too, you should have recognized.
You have written some interesting things on this list, Brian, but you are
letting your aversion to my theories (or me) interfere with your analysis
and logical processes.
So much for 'legitimate' (your word {sic})!
As an aside: PIE *k^ei- is derived from *k^e-, 'other', here with the nuance
of 'nearby'.
<snip>
> >> 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
***
Patrick:
Brian, I looked at it very closely when it first was published on the net
several years ago.
I have no way to evaluate the arithmetic but I did form an opinion on the
framing of the question.
It is inadequate.
***