From: Torsten
Message: 65352
Date: 2009-11-02
>You don't know how close you are to a real problem here. Actually the classical theory of gravity does introduce demons, namely independent agents doing the pulling, as soon as you begin to formulate it in some kind of representational language. Note the sad fate of poor Gravity in
> > > Well, this explains a lot... you really think being popular is
> > > the only thing distinguishing a scientific theory from any
> > > random idea?
> >
> > No, I think they are distinguished by having been non-disproved
> > for longer.
>
> Is "not being disproven" really sufficient for you? Gravity-
> as-caused-by-demons has not been disproven, but that's because it
> is not disprovable to begin with, not because it would be a theory.
> Predictiv power really should come into that too (tho it is quiteForget predictive power in a historical science. Any prediction a theory makes we already know, unless we discover new material like Hittite, and that's very rare.
> link'd with falsifiability).
>Obviously. Simplicity. My second criterion is Occam.
> > > And yes, I agree with Brian that it would explain some of the
> > > difficulties in trying to debate with you.
> >
> > You guys need to work on your separation anxiety. It is actually
> > possible to survive without adhering to the popular theory.
>
> Sure, but why should we do so? Evidently you still use some
> property distinct from both popularity and longevity in choosing
> which hypothesis to look into, but you haven't told yet what it is.
> Not that adherence is a black-and-white question anyway.True.
> > > > > > If I wish to speculate, I speculate. I don't know whatI know they will, after I'm dead. But then it will be too late (*sob*)
> > > > > > weird laws you have in your country.
> > > > >
> > > > > No law. But that's on the further assumption that you expect
> > > > > others to care.
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't.
> > >
> > > No? Why do you post your thoughts here anyway if you are not
> > > interested in disseminating them?
> >
> > If I post my thoughts here, then I *am* disseminating them. Doh!
>
> Certainly. But you simultaneously have no *interest* in getting
> others to care?
> This disconnect reads to me as "I like to post stuff, regardless ofNo, I do that in other fora.
> what it actually says".
> > > > > BTW, do you realize they mean the noun _kanta_ "base ofYes.
> > > > > something" here, not the verb _kanta-_ "to carry"?
> > > > >
> > > > "Support"?
> > >
> > > The morphology doesn't fit. For verbs, -o quite regularly
> > > derives either a nomen verbum:
> > > _osta-_ "to buy" > _osto_ "an act of purchase"
> > > _hiihtä-_ "to ski" > _hiihto_ "skiing"
> > > _pelkä-_ "to fear" > _pelko_ "fear"
> > > and indeed, the homonymic _kanto_ "an act of carrying".
> > >
> > > Or a patient:
> > > _kaiva-_ "to dig" > _kaivo_ "a well"
> > > _liittä-_ "to join" > _liitto_ "alliance"
> > >
> > > kanta- > kanto would however be deriving the subject. And the
> > > zero-derived subject kanta- > kanta would be even more out of
> > > the ordinary.
> >
> > So the derivation must have taken place outside of Uralic.
>
> If we assume they ARE in a derivational relationship, yes.
> Any ancestors of Proto-Uralic are technically outside of UralicAmend that to 'outside of the straight descent of the Uralic family'.
> too, however.
>Indeed.
> > > > > > So you are arguing that although hunting storages were
> > > > > > cultural items the designations of which might have been
> > > > > > loaned along with the article itself, the support on which
> > > > > > it stands isn't?
> > > > >
> > > > > The support is simply the base of a tree. Yes, I'm arguing
> > > > > that there is no need to loan a specific word for that,
> > > > > given that the meaning "base of tree" is confirm'd the
> > > > > original one by the other Uralic languages.
> > > >
> > > > The other possibility is that the "tree stump" word spread
> > > > with the storage hut technology and was later generalized
> > > > (those people were not botanists or zoologists; they had
> > > > words for what was necessary to stay alive).
> > >
> > > As phytology goes, the concept of "tree stump" is kindergarten
> > > level. (Also a popular sorce of insect protein for hunter-
> > > gatherers.)
> >
> > Why don't you came right out and say what you mean, instead of
> > this convoluted nastiness?
>
>
> Convoluted nastiness?? If I wanted to be convolutedly nasty, I
> would be pointing out all the various possibilities involving
> Basque monks, wrathful dispersion, and invisible pink unicorns.
> And I mean exactly what I last said two messages before: "treeBut they can't be expected not to replace by a new word from some prestigious new technology.
> stump" is the kind of concept even stone-age hunter-gatherers can
> be expected to have in their vocabulary.
> Pointing out that they PUIt wasn't intended to be.
> speakers weren't botanists is no argument against reconstructing an
> item with that meaning.
>And demonstratives in n-, s- and t-.
> > Actually all the shared IE - Uralic words I run into seem to have
> to do with water transport, also in IE, as if those things were
> foreign concepts in IE.
>
> *nom- / *nimi "name"
> *kWe- / *ku- "interrogativ pronoun base"