Re: Grimm 's Law fact or myth: Gessman (1990)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Grimm 's Law fact or myth: Gessman (1990)
>
>
> > The languages like Enlgish and German are facts but "Germanic"
> > languages is not a fact and so is PIE.
>
> That can't be true. Languages can't be facts. A fact is a true
> contingent statement, ie statement about something in the world. I
> think that what you want to express is that the existence of the
> English and German languages are facts, or that the English and
> German languages exist. After that you state that certain families
> of languages don't exist. It is true that collectives don't exist in
> the same fashion as individuals do, since they are defined,
> explicitly or implicitly, as sets of individuals having
> characteristic properties in common, and the way in which these
> properties are selected is based on social convention. Therefore,
> collectives don't exist in the ordinary sense, their 'existence' in
> our languages is a matter of convenience. And therefore it is
> meaningless to deny the existence of a collective category, at the
> most one might argue that is unpractical, or ethically undesirable,
> etc. If I should choose to argue in the same essentialist fashion as
> you, I could say:
>
> 'Fido exists, but dogs don't, nor do animals'; or
> 'MKelkar exists, but Indians or Hindus don't, therefore MKelkar is
> neither an Indian nor a Hindu'.
>
> Would you be satisfied with that?
>
>
> Torsten
>
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> I think you are on the right track with this answer, Torsten.

Thank you.

> Facts can be difficult to determine.

Yes, but that was not my point.

> German and English are facts because they are observable repeatedly
> by anyone.

Erh, hm, and you are on the wrong track with this answer. Let me quote
myself, above: 'Languages can't be facts'. That means languages are
*not* facts.

> Germanic and Indo-European are _not_ facts because they have not
> been observed.

See above.

> They are, however, very efficient explanations of the facts we can
> observe.

No, 'Germanic' and 'Indo-European' are no more explanations than 'dog
and 'Hindu' are. They are labels for categories. They explain nothing.
A set of further assumptions about the common genesis of the members
of a category might explain why the category 'exists' (which actually
means: why it is a practical tool for grasping the world around us).
but in itself a category explains nothing.

> Adjustments to Germanic and Indo-European can and are made
> regularly.

Not to the groups themselves, the members of them have been pretty
much the same since someone first thought of the idea of grouping them
together in a single category, but to the further assumptions about
their genesis. And mostly irregularly.

> A fact cannot be adjusted unless the observation was initially
> faulty.

True that.

> Secondly, I do not see Mr. Kelkar pushing his interpretation of
> history though that may be his ultimate motivation.

I can't figure out what his motivation is for attacking Grimm's law.
Why is that so important to him?


Torsten