Re: Scythian tribal names: Paralatai

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:
> >
> > At 7:53:45 PM on Saturday, July 5, 2008, stlatos wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > > <BMScott@> wrote:
> >
> > >> At 1:04:13 AM on Saturday, July 5, 2008, stlatos wrote:
> >
> > >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
> > >>> <liberty@> wrote:
> >
> > >> [...]
> >
> > >>>> 'Aptya'/'Athwiya' is indeed an irregular
> > >>>> correspondence, but one on obviously much more solid
> > >>>> ground than 'Thraetaona'/ 'Targitaus'.
> >
> > >>> Yes, of course, but the principle that changes might
> > >>> occur in only one word in a language and still be valid
> > >>> and identifiable must be used for both.
> >
> > >> It is an empirical fact that irregular changes occur, not
> > >> a matter of principle,
> >
> > > Are you objecting to my use of the word "principle"?
> >
> > I'm objecting to the notion that any principle is involved.
> > Obviously this entails objecting to the use of the word, but
> > my objection goes well beyond that.
>
> What do you mean? You said it was a "fact" that irregular changes
> occurred, so why isn't it a principle that such changes account for
> some correspondences?

If you make rules which describe those changes, then they aren't
irregular any more.

> The lack of such a principle in Neogrammarian Theory led to
> insurmountable problems.

The insistence on treating every language as homogenous created those
problems.

> How else am I supposed to describe its nature and usage?

Of what?

> Are obvious correspondences like OE blo:d > E blood explained by
> u: > U > V not based on principles because the posited changes are
> irregular?

They are based on forms from dia- and sociolects other than standard one.

> What is the dif. between an explanation based only on
> facts and one including (nonexistent?) principles?

???


Torsten