From: Torsten
Message: 65074
Date: 2009-09-20
>No, I was pointing out to Francesco that in the final analysis, all reconstructed forms are invented. This because I like my criticism explicit, not implicit.
> At 5:25:39 AM on Sunday, September 20, 2009, Torsten wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@>
> > wrote:
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@>
> >> wrote:
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "frabrig" <frabrig@>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> In search for a Sarmatian etymon for his invented
> >>>> Iazigyan word **far-ang 'enemy, one of the others',
> >>> actually, invented words have only one asterisk in linguistics,
>
> >> Trask, _The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative
> >> Linguistics_, s.v. <asterisk>:
>
> >> Some linguists prefer to use a double asterisk for
> >> certain purposes: to indicate that a proposed form has
> >> been reconstructed on the basis of other forms that are
> >> themselves reconstructed, to mark a suggested
> >> reconstruction as doubtful, or to distinguish a form as
> >> actually impossible rather than as merely non-existent
> >> or unrecorded.
>
> > I know.
>
> So you were sniping just to snipe.
> I rather thought so.I rather thought you would.
> >>> Now who would try to unite all this under the hat ofI think you got that wrong. Historical linguistics is not engineering, it's reconstruction, a kind of linguistic archaeology. But, to each his own; you just keep on playing with your Lego in the corner while I try to figure out how to piece together words and facts other people have discarded.
> >>> 'Germanic'? Not me, for sure.
>
> >> 'Who would try to unite all this?' seems a more
> >> reasonable question.
>
> > The really reasonable question is: 'If have nothing to
> > contribute in linguistics, why open your mouth at all?'
>
> Trying to build a functioning machine from mismatched parts
> scavenged from local junkyards is a linguistic contribution?