--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
wrote:
> And *tray-tawna- could well be right, given the difficulty
> with a suffix -awna-, but, again, Piotr never tried to make
> cognates of 'Thraetaona' and 'Targitaus', which they could
> not be by any known sound changes, your own suggested sound
> changes being unrealistic and unconvincing, I'm afraid.
What do you mean by "known"? Again, is an Avestan change of p>w
+met unknown because it happened only once (in surviving words)? Its
environment, if regular, can't be determined. If irregular/unique, is
it any less certain?
> Finally, for want of a better way to explain myself, let me
> describe an imaginary scenario:
>
> Suppose that a fellow jogging at night along some south-west
> highway was hit and killed by a car, and that subsequently
> a number of urban myths were inspired by the story involving
> people encountering his ghost running along the highways of
> Arizona, Nevada, and S. California. Suppose also that an
> anthropologist (or whichever sort of 'ologist' studies this
> sort of thing) went to the south-west to document the myths
> and learned, and dutifully documented, that the ghostly
> character was called "The Runner" in Arizona, but as one
> went further west was also known as "The Running Man", until
> reaching California where he was known exclusively by the
> latter name. Now suppose that a would-be linguist of some
> centuries later read the accounts and assumed, quite correctly
> of course, that The Runner and The Running Man were reflexes
> of the same character, but then went about devising a set of
> sound changes to derive both '&r' and 'INmæn' from a single
> earlier sequence.
>
> Obviously that would be quite wrong, but is comparable to
> what you're trying to do with 'Thraetaona' and 'Targitaus'
> now, and the sort of thing you've indulged in so often
> before, Sean.
I didn't directly relate the two when I first heard about them.
Something like *trika- seemed possible, but after seeing Tirgatao:
elsewhere, that also went away. Only after I saw changes of n>N>g in
other words, in investigations unrelated to Targitaos, did I begin to
consider a direct relationship.
Your point about intermediate stages with both options is actually
helpful when considering words not descriptions: if we were lucky
enough to know of a language with a myth in which a character was
known as both *Tritauna and *Trinatau, it would be support for my
theory. Unfortunately, nothing like this seems to exist. However,
since Tirgatao: is between *TriNatau and Targitaos it helped me
slightly; you weren't willing to consider tri- > Targitaos (instead of
tar- > ) before I mentioned this name.
The sad fact is that all intermediate forms are NEVER available for
great historical depth. Since some changes are common and others
unusual, the exact stages aren't always thought of. We know that not
all cognates resemble each other and not all words that resemble each
other are cognates; therefore, some very likely reconstructions are
wrong and others that look odd are still right. I understand why you
would have trouble believing my theory, but I refuse to accept your
opinion that it is just foolishness that comes from my ignorance of
linguistic principles.
Let's consider an opposite situation: a large number of possible
cognates are known with many intermediate forms, but they argue for an
unlikely theory. That is, instead of Targitaos and Thraetaona-, of
unknown meaning, having SOME connection, even in part, in one group
(Iranian) we'll take a word of known meaning from two groups without
proven relation. If my theory of Targitaos is proven correct it would
only show odd rules within a known group, if the other theory is
proven correct it would show fairly likely rules within two groups,
arguing for a relationship.
For this example, at starling.rinet.ru there are many relationships
and rules proposed that I don't consider correct, including some for
the word 'badger'. In Turkic languages this is borsuq, morzuq, etc.
They seem obviously related, but how? Without the intermediate
borsmuq, metathesis wouldn't seem likelier than original mb- or bm-.
The lack of this one word would have kept the correct chain from being
validated.
Now, grouped within North Caucasian:
Meaning: badger
Tsezi: biruo
Ginukh: biruo
Bezhta: beruse
Gunzib: miru
This oddity is a good piece of evidence for the proposed
"macro-family" (not good enough, in my opinion), but it again hinges
on ONE word without which it could just as easily be seen as
coincidence. It's only mirus^ that establishes a shared oddity that
almost must be explained by common origin in a genetic or borrowing
context.
Just as one word with m not b can change the set of arguments needed
for this word, so one with N not g could have affected mine. Am I to
give up everything because of the vagaries of history?