Re: Amber

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > --- stlatos <stlatos@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> > > > > > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And why would anyone choose to characterize amber as
> > > > > > > "golden resin" when they are practically the same color?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't say all sap, pitch, or resin (whatever the
> > > > > > original range of meanings) was golden.
> > > >
> > > > No, you would probably say pitch is black. So how does that
> > > > get into the discussion? The relevant resins are golden.
> > >
> > >
> > > You assumed with no evidence that the word you believed
> > > existed always and only meant one thing, golden resin,
> >
> > No, I didn't. I pointed out that all resins you'd see exude from
> > trees in these latitudes are golden, or amber-colored.
>
> You said the word was borrowed; how would you know if it was
> originally redundant?

I don't know. Was it?

> The speakers of the language could have lived almost anywhere.

The speakers of what language?

> > > and hence no word made of golden + golden resin could exist
> > > (presumably because you believe redundant compounds don't
> > > exist).
> >
> > No hence. I pointed out it would make no sense to distinguish one
> > substance from another with a color adjective if they are both the
> > same color (and they are, see above).
>
> Whether you think it makes sense or not, redundancy exists.

That's right, but I wasn't talking about redundancy. Are you on acid?

> > > > > > there is no rule against redundancy in language and such
> > > > > > forms are common.
> > > >
> >
> > Would you consider an etymology in which ice is called 'white
> > snow'? That would be redundant, but there is no rule against
> > redundancy in language and such forms are common. Or something.
>
> I've made this as clear as possible using real examples.

You're not doing a very good job of it.

> I don't know why you're continuing to make up forms as if they have
> some relevance.

I don't know why you say I am continuing to make up forms since this
was the first time I made a fictitious form.

> > > any language could still clarify it by adding 'golden',
> > > especially if the original root had been lost in all other words
> > > and thus become unanalyzable.
> >
> > Yes, and then it would mean "golden resin", but who needs a word
> > like that when all resins are golden?
>
> I never said it was needed. Redundancy by definition is not
> necessary and yet it exists.

OK, but why add a color adjective to distinguish a substance the
distinguishing characteristic of which in relation to the comparandum
is that it is a solid, not a fluid?

> > > Your criticism of my theory also made no sense because of the
> > > nature of my compound (as opposed to the non-compound of your
> > > theory)
> >
> > Something is wrong with the nature of my non-compound?
>
> Since my compound is of IE origin it can be divided into sections
> based on comparative evidence.

You divided you compound where I divided mine.

> Then each portion can be analyzed individually.

Identified, you probably mean.

> Yours, from a supposedly unknown language,

No, it wasn't. It was IE *gWe(n)t- "resin", I just assumed that that
was ultimately a loan.

> cannot have its older meaning analyzed by examination of its form
> (or those of its parts if it were a compound).

Invalid as per above.

> There's nothing "wrong" with that part of your theory by itself, I
> just explained that your theory of the meaning of your (entire) word
> didn't apply to one part of mine.

I don't get that. Explain.

...

> > > instead of conjecture: that is, this word does not _only_ mean
> > > 'golden resin' in IE languages so _in
> > > terms of MY theory_ there is no possibility of redundancy.
> >
> > Huh? What?? Have you been reading Derrida?
>
> I don't know what you're talking about. If PIE gWetu- didn't mean
> 'golden resin' then adding 'golden' to it wouldn't be redundant.

Yes. Why are you saying that?

> >
> > > You have no way of knowing the original meaning
> >
> > Neither of us do.
>
> I wouldn't say my theory is certain, but if from an IE compound
> the meaning is knowable. If it's from non-IE I'd agree with your
> evaluation, but there's nothing to show it's definitely from non-IE.

???

> If you mean even PIE wouldn't necessarily show the original
> meaning, that may be true, but I'm not trying to go further than the
> immediate source of the loans (if indeed they are loans).
>
> > > but I am not: I don't believe (any part) of the word meant only
> > > 'golden resin'.
> >
> > Good for you. And how is that relevant?
>
> I'm attempting to respond to your objections.

Really?

> Since they make no sense it's difficult to know what responses you'd
> accept.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

> You continue to say the word applied to 'resin (only

gold-colored)' not sap, pitch, etc.,

No, I don't.

> but you also say it didn't originally mean 'golden resin',

No, I don't.

> and when I say it didn't originally mean 'golden resin' you want to
> know why it's relevant?

Yes, please.

> I don't know if the oddity of your responses is due to malice or
> stupidity, but if you don't change your ways I'm done responding.

That's too bad. I was beginning to enjoy this exchange. You get tired
watching old Monty Python reruns.


Torsten