From: stlatos
Message: 59512
Date: 2008-07-10
--- 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, and there is no guarantee that isolated
> instances can even be identified, let alone demonstrated.
Brian says:
principle1 not principle?
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
> stlatos
>> 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.
Brian says:
principle1 not principle
meaning of "principle" important
other objections (more) important
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 7:45:23 PM on Sunday, July 6, 2008, stlatos wrote:
> > 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.
Brian says:
principle2 not principle
[methodological principle to which I originally objected] is principle
meaning of "principle" not important
whether relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and <Targitaus>
important
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@> wrote:
> > 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 of
> > irregular correspondences a principle is something of a
> > misuse of the word,
> > The actual principle that you have in mind here is
> > apparently that types of correspondences that are known to
> > exist cannot a priori be excluded from consideration.)
Brian says:
principle2 not principle (misuse)?
principle3 is principle
meaning of "principle" not important
whether relationship obtains between <Thraetaona> and <Targitaus> not
important
I hope this makes clear any confusion that might have made me defend
anything other than the totality of my methodology in general terms.
The very first thing he objects to was p1; to my question about
particulars he said, "I'm objecting to the notion that any principle
is involved." But in the next message, "for that you need something
like the methodological principle to which I originally objected." I
suppose he means the one he made up but said I followed (the second
objection, not original, unless he meant p1). Later, "The actual
principle that you have in mind here is apparently that types of
correspondences that are known to exist cannot a priori be excluded
from consideration." So perhaps p1 is not (actually?) the principle I
follow, only the ones he makes up or restates are? How can he believe
in p3 but object to a specific subset like "that changes might occur
in only one word in a language and still be valid and identifiable"?
He seems to say I need a rule that possible correspondences are
always real in order to say that this particular possibility is real,
which is ridiculous. I can't prove it based only on a principle, but
that isn't unusual.
The defense of any of this, whether saying it's true or saying it's
a principle, is later said to be irrelevant by him.
And though I've said nothing about Thraetaona- and Targitaos to him
yet (the point of the thread which he began responding to), he brings
it up:
> 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.
Though he later says "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." as if I've done something
wrong, against the point, motivated by my misunderstanding or blind
spot, etc., in using any of these words as examples to defend my work.
He says, "The real point is that this fact does not in itself
justify claiming that such an irregular relationship obtains" but when
I say I never claimed the fact justified it by itself, only that it
left open the possibility, he said, "I know." How am I to interpret this?