From: stlatos
Message: 59511
Date: 2008-07-10
>If you knew, why did you object as you did below (including "there
> At 5:29:14 AM on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, stlatos wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I did not say that the existence of the principle PROVED I
> > was right, but that I COULD be right.
>
> I know.
> > I did this to object to the statements that I MUST beWithout looking through the whole thread, he said I was "apparently
> > wrong because of linguistic principles.
>
> I made no such statement, and I don't recall that David did
> so either.
> > As far as I can see, you misinterpreted my remarks to meanI understood that part, but you added other things (below).
> > that the principle showed I MUST be right, instead, I said
> > the same principle(s) must be applied to both
> > correspondences.
>
> As I suspected, you have not understood what I've been
> trying to say. I was never particularly interested in this
> particular correspondence: it was merely a convenient
> occasion to point out what I consider to be a very serious
> flaw in your methodology. I am not objecting strenuously to
> any particular reconstruction but rather to your whole
> approach, and I thought that I'd made that rather clear.
> Evidently I was mistaken, but I'm afraid that I haven't the
> time to pursue it further, especially in the face of what
> looks like a real blind spot.
> (As it happens, I still think that calling the existence ofI stated the principle and believe it to be true. If you have any
> irregular correspondences a principle is something of a
> misuse of the word,
> but that too is and was always by theYou continued to object to my wording, said "how is that a
> way.
> The actual principle that you have in mind here isI am offended that you first said that the principle was wrong but
> apparently that types of correspondences that are known to
> exist cannot a priori be excluded from consideration.)
--- 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,
If you thought this was an example of a principle, why did you say
this? You seemed to be objecting to my use of the word, but when I
asked for clarification it was unclear, though you called it a
"principle" within a later message, then later objected clearly to
another use of "principle". Without a specific reason given, I could
only give a close example of a principle in the same form from a
professional.
Did you disagree with it then and later change your mind? If so,
why (and why didn't you say so)?
> and there is no guarantee that isolated
> instances can even be identified, let alone demonstrated.
If you weren't objecting to this specific claim, if it was "merely a
convenient occasion to point out what I consider to be a very serious
flaw in your methodology", why say this after I specifically said
"changes might occur in only one word in a language and still be valid
and identifiable" with "might" not "guarantee"?
With what you said here I had to ask more and defend my point.
Without further clarification on your part, I tried theorizing about
your exact reasons for saying this and more. Do you see why I would
be confused about your purpose and point without having a "blind spot"?
> Even when an irregular relationship is very likely, the
> details of the change are generally undemonstrable in the
> absence of intermediate forms.
Again, you're saying this after I took the time to look for examples
in which an intermediate form is necessary for proof, and its lack
would have been disastrous. I had said that new forms showing some
intermediate stage could have proven me right (or could if new ev. is
found in the future).
> There is obviously some
> value in finding a plausible pathway, but in the case of an
> isolated change it isn't subject to confirmation; it's a
> Just-So story, and the proposed 'rules' have no real
> evidentiary support.
Future evidence could come to light, etc. It's all subject to
confirmation. Most changes can't be proven, completely confirmed,
etc., but there's a purpose for theory for both reg. and irreg.
This doesn't look like you're objecting to a flaw in my methodology
only, but to the principles behind it. I defended those principles,
asked for clarification of your meaning, and responded as best I
could. It wasn't a "blind spot" that dictated my responses to you,
but the nature of your criticism.
You made your objections in a thread discussing my theory for
Thraetaona/Targitaos, but that isn't what I kept talking about with
you or even what I used for most examples. I didn't misunderstand you
or think you were only "objecting strenuously to [this] any particular
reconstruction". Each thing I've said was in response to something
you said.
> > You can object to the particulars of my reconstruction,
> > but not the theory behind it.
>
> I do in fact object to one of your fundamental
> methodological principles: crudely stated, that if two words
> might have a common source, they do, at least if you can
> come up with derivations that you find plausible.
Now we reach this section, which, if it were the entirety of your
criticism, wouldn't have necessitated questions and examples about
principles which you seem to feel came about because I missed the
point of your message.
I'd say, "if two words might have a common source, come up with
derivations that you find plausible and see if the changes they imply
are found in any other possible correspondences". The more times a
change occurs, the more likely it is to be both true and regular. If
a correspondence between two words with the same meaning doesn't work
with X (20, 30, etc.) regular rules but is only one sound off, an
irregular rule is likely to exist.
This seems close enough to most of linguistics. Keep in mind I'll
respond if someone is asking if any explanation can be given for an
odd circumstance, which tends to be solved by irregularity, if there's
any explanation at all. I'd rather give a possibility than say
nothing, which is usually the practical thing to do. I know any
theory could be wrong, but this is a place where theories should be given.
I agree with most principles used in traditional linguistics. The
criticism I've received after the Targitaos theory mostly assumed I
was trying to destroy all that was accepted and replace it with
something based on my own fantasy.
> As I
> think Piotr once commented, it leads to multiplication of
> phonemes and derivations full of metatheses, assimilations,
> and dissimilations that often seem rather ad hoc. It also
> makes you too ready (in my opinion) to dismiss the
> possibility of language-internal derivation in favor of
> common ancestry followed by complex sequences of sometimes
> very irregular sound changes.
I have no preference for the irregular, but I'll propose it when
necessary. I wonder how you wanted me to respond to this if it's not
meant to be a criticism of any specific word. Would any example of an
irregular change you agree with be specific and thus beside the point?
What percentage of changes are irregular? How do you know how much
of what hasn't been explained would be irregular?