Re: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal' Theory)

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Vocalic Theory ('Laryngeal'
> Theory)
>
> > --- etherman23 <etherman23@...> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> > > <proto-language@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I never seem to be able to communicate this
> very
> > > simple principle to some people:
> > > >
> > > > PIE roots are either CV or CVC(V).
> There
> > > are no exceptions.
> > >
> > > It's clear that there are so many exceptions
> that
> > the rule can't
> > > possibly be true.
> >
> > This is the kind of problem that emerges when your
> > rely on a priori "knowledge" (i.e. assumptions)
> rather
> > than a posteriori empiricism. See Willard Van
> Orman
> > Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism." Ray, Piotr,
> David,
> > Torsten and everyone else have shown a posteriori
> > empirical evidence that contradicts the a priori
> > assumption. To remain credible, you'll have to
> change
> > the paradigm.
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> Generalizations like the above mean next to nothing.
>
> If you dispute my claim for defining root-form,
> provide an example or two
> that negates it.
>
>
> ***

Our colleagues already have. *kredh- is CCVCC- and
does not correspond to your CV-, CVC, CVCC- paradigm
My comment is meant as advice, not as an insult.
It is excellent advice for everyone on the list, and
most people follow it most of the time.
But read Quine, he was from Brian's present stomping
grounds and I imagine that, as a mathematician,
Brian's very well acquainted with him. I actually use
Quine in literary theory to talk about the poetics of
organic verse and its function as a meme-delivery device.