From: Rick McCallister
Message: 59233
Date: 2008-06-13
>Who, among professional mainstream linguists, agrees
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] 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.
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> You write as if that someone mentioned something
> proves it.
>
> I am sure you remember the long controversial
> discussions of this root.
>
> In my opinion, it is a compound not a simple root
> per se consisting of
>
> *k^Ar- + *dh(A).
>
> ***