--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 7:45:23 PM on Sunday, July 6, 2008, 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?
>
> In what way is that assertion a *principle*? You can't use
> it to do anything, for Pete's sake. But don't waste time
> getting hung up on the word. The real point is that this
> fact does not in itself justify claiming that such an
> irregular relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and
> <Targitaus>; for that you need something like the
> methodological principle to which I originally objected.
This has become very confusing and complicated for some reason; let
me try to account for everything as best I can:
1. You said, "It is an empirical fact that irregular changes occur,
not a matter of principle"
1a. In _Principles of Historical Linguistics_ by Hans Henrich Hock, he
said, "We may even have to accept analyses which violate the principle
that sound change is regular" to account for irregular correspondences
(in 19.1.3).
1b. Therefore, if I agree with Hock, saying "some sound changes are
regular" or "some sound changes are irregular" would be stating
principles, even if they are "facts" as well.
1c. I agree with Hock.
-
Therefore, I say "that irregular changes occur" is a principle.
2. Skt A:ptya- corresponds to Av A:thwiya-.
2a. Therefore, Skt pt corresponds to Av thw in at least one word.
2b. Skt pt corresponds to Av thw in no other words.
2c. Therefore, Skt pt corresponds to Av thw in only one word.
2d. A change is irregular if it happened in one word but not another.
2e. A change is irregular if it happened in one word only.
-
From 2, 2c and 2e pt>thw is irregular.
-
There were probably intermediate steps like pt>wt, wt>tw, but I'll
keep it as one rule for simplicity.
Now, back to the original message:
> >>>>>> '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.
You objected to this. Which do you say is wrong:
1. "'Aptya'/'Athwiya' is indeed an irregular correspondence"
1a. pt>thw is irregular.
1b. They correspond.
2. There are irregular sound changes that happened in one word but not
another.
3. There are irregular sound changes that happened in one word only.
4. 2 and/or 3 are not principles.
5. If they correspond, the change pt>thw can be identified.
6. The change pt>thw is valid.
7. If the above, then "changes might occur in only one word in a
language and still be valid and identifiable".
Moving on:
> The real point is that this
> fact does not in itself justify claiming that such an
> irregular relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and
> <Targitaus>; for that you need something like the
> methodological principle to which I originally objected.
You might have misunderstood me. I agreed when he said that A:ptya-
corresponding to A:thwiya- was more certain than Thraetaona to
Targitaos. The evidence is weaker, but the principle that an
irregular change MIGHT account for it is the same.
I did not say that the existence of the principle PROVED I was
right, but that I COULD be right. I did this to object to the
statements that I MUST be wrong because of linguistic principles. All
I wanted to do was say that if he believed in a correspondence with an
irregular change, then the fact that I posited an irregular change for
Targitaos should not itself PROVE to him I was wrong. It would be
possible to prove me right or wrong based on additional evidence (not
likely to show up).
As far as I can see, you misinterpreted my remarks to mean that the
principle showed I MUST be right, instead, I said the same
principle(s) must be applied to both correspondences. Applying a
principle doesn't mean that a possibility inherent in the principle
applies in that case (for example, "most changes are regular, a reg.
change should be given if possible" doesn't mean that a person who
applies this can ALWAYS give regular rules, even when correspondences
don't allow them). Applying my p. means I look for irreg. rules
whenever there's a possibility of relation, not that those I find MUST
be true or complete.
Since an irregular change for A:ptya-, A:thwiya- didn't prove or
disprove the correspondence by itself, saying that Targitaos would
need an irregular change to cor. to Thraetaona didn't prove or
disprove the correspondence by itself.