Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar Approximant

--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tg
pedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In

cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "co
ngotre o" <congotron@> wrote:

> >
> >
> > It was interesting to

see these arguments.

> > I am a novice to many of

these details, but I want
advice on

> > something rudimentary.
> > I met a guy from Kurgan,

Russia where some say this
whole language

> > family 'originated.'
> >
> > I started trying to

explain this whole idea of a
common ancestral

> > language, and started

off with the word he
used 'sto', Russian for

> > 100, and I explained to

a group (of math students)
its roots and

> > relation to 'hund' of

hundred, following that
centum/satem argument

> > from introductions to

etymology. I explained
the detail, but it

> > wasn't impressive,

because it wasn't obvious to
others that these

> > relationships were not

accidental. On the other
hand, if you

> > use common words

like 'mother', some assume
that similar words in

> > faraway places are an

accident, or a more recently
globalized word.

> >
> > What kind of examples

will bring the average
person uninformed of

> > p-IE ancestry to give it

any attention, since common
words like

> > 'dog' and 'perro', as

you said here, are from
sidestreams?

> >
> > I know this jumps the

whole conversation
backwards, but for me, in

> > the real world, it's

hard to strike up a
conversation where I can

> > make the argument about

common ancestry believable
at all.

>
>
> Like everything else,

there should be some
tangible benefit at the end

> of the road, before you

choose to take it. To Rasmus
Rask, there was

> the everyday puzzle of why

two such similar languages
as Danish and

> Swedish should exist,

without one being
more 'right' than the other.

> To the Grimm brothers, the

puzzle was why Low German
which was so

> similar to Dutch should be

a German dialect while Dutch
wasn't (why is

> it not part of Germany?).

To William Jones, the
striking similarity

> between Sanskrit, Greek

and Latin offered an
opportunity to see the

> English as distant cousins

of the Indian upper class,
with just as

> much claim as that to

interfere in Indian
matters.

> In contrast, the average

American is not interested
in demonstrating

> any relationship with his

own language and any one
language of the old

> world, which he sees as

passé and irrelevant.
Inasmuch as he is able

> to see that there actually

might be a relationship, he
will get

> annoyed rather than

enthusiastic, since it
threatens to drag the

> status of his country down

from being the country to
end all nations

> and nationalism to being

just another one of them.

>
>
> Torsten
>

I don't know how you knew I
was American. In this
particular case, I am the
American who has the
interest, and the group I'm
speaking of are mostly
immigrants. I am not
disagreeing with you, and I
share your enthusiasm about
the explorers, early and
contemporaneous, in the
field.
My chief comment was not
that others weren't
interested, I meant that it
is hard to choose the right
evidence to convince people
who never heard of evolution
of language. Referring them
to the final brackets of
etymology in a Webster's
dictionary does just annoy
many people.

The lack of passion for
purely intellectual pursuit
is probably not improving
at all under the current
business ethic.

However, this ethic is now
under existential scutiny
even here in the US. I
admire those who have worked
hard for their intellectual
passions, which is
demonstrated continually on
this site.