From: stlatos
Message: 65802
Date: 2010-02-06
>Let me put it this way: if you knew that *kantlo- existed, remembered it, had it in mind at the time, and even wrote it out, then you should be aware of it as a likely source of F kantele even if, due to some possible lack of knowledge about what might happen upon it being borrowed into F, you thought you might not have enough knowledge to consider it the most likely and almost certain.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was joking myself, actually, with the recent sitar thread in
> > > mind, though I find now in the archives that Piotr did indeed
> > > once suggest such an etymology. Those messages can't be found
> > > searching for 'kantele', however, as 'kant&le' was used.
> > >
> > > See http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48755
> > > and http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/48756 .
> >
> > Well, some odd things have apparently happened since I last
> > looked here.
>
> - edit -
>
> > Also, I was absolutely stunned when I saw "I was joking myself".
> > There was no reason he, or I, would think you were joking. The
> > reason? Because kantele and *kantlo- are so obviously related
> > that no one with any knowledge of linguistics and of right mind
> > could think otherwise
>
> No, it would require besides some specific knowledge of
> Estonian or Finnish (to whichever the word is supposed
> to belong), but which I do not myself have.
> > > I was joking myself, actually, with the recent sitar thread inIn "the recent sitar thread" you argued that my *kantli:x \ *kantla:x >> kítharis \ kithára: was wrong, so I took it that you considered the kantele and *kantlo- connection equally dubious. That is, maybe you meant that only I would suggest something like kantele << *kantle: < *kantliya: <mix *kantli:x + *kantla:x; your suggestion of anything similar would be a joke.
> > > mind, though I find now in the archives that Piotr did indeed
> > > once suggest such an etymology. Those messages can't be found
> > > searching for 'kantele', however, as 'kant&le' was used.
> > I dislike being accused of incompetence by someone who couldI think I have really responded. For example, I've said that positing metathesis is a known, established, and proven methods of linguistic reconstruction. For some reason, most of my opponents consider this evidence of my lack of skill. I can understand why someone might not agree with many uses for the same derivation, or to connect words thought to be unrelated due to some difference in meaning, but this should be true of any change. I am faced with those who are unlikely to accept even *waruna- \ urwana-. For example, I think you argued against my connection of TARGITAUS \ TIRGATAO \ TIRGUTAWIYA (though you might have changed your mind after learning the same argument was made by one you consider a competent linguist).
> > not only make this error but then assume his interpretation
> > was so right and obvious that he could make an ironic statement
> > otherwise that would be immediately clear.
>
> You don't seem to like being accused of incompetence
> by _anybody_, but then you've never really responded
> to any of mine or others' very specific criticisms of
> your method.
>
> Instead you repeatedly make claims like your recent
> one that you "use established and proven methods of
> linguistic reconstruction (including borrowing,
> metathesis, and dissimilation), mostly regular rules
> (and those that aren't mostly optional", but which
> have led you to radically different conclusions from
> those of all others claiming to use the same methods.
> So either you don't truly understand those methods, orWell, in linguistic matters I suppose I'd have to agree to something like that. However, in the history of linguistics many professional linguists have had theories that might have looked like the work of "blind fools" to their contemporaries but come to be accepted. Others are considered foolish now as well as then, and still many professional linguists disagree with each other in ways that about certain things that sometimes are just a matter of interpretation, but about certain other things must indicate at least one is deluded, incompetent, or unduly influenced by personal desire or esthetic sense.
> else you alone do and nobody else does, for you seem
> to stand entirely alone in your conclusions.
>
> Are we truly to believe that only Sean and Sean alone
> in all the world has the intelligence to see the truth
> while all others are blind fools?
> > I don't know why you seem so opposed to ancient borrowings thatI suppose most professional linguists would say that kítharis \ kithára: were borrowings, and from an unknown source. What I wonder about is why you wouldn't accept my work as showing a possible source, from an IE language, and instead say I "don't truly understand those methods", and similar things about my other theories.
> > you would take this path,
>
> Nothing I've ever said justifies the assumption that I'm
> opposed to ancient borrowings.
> As far as my so-called contempt goes, I think I arrivedTrue.
> at it quite justifiedly, from such claims as the one of
> yours that "All known languages not currently classified
> as IE are actually from one branch of IE: Indo-Iranian",
> archived at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62316 .
>I've been busy, haven't responded to messages for a while, and haven't read messages, haven't searched the list. When I had free time, I went back and read the archive and saw some things I wanted to respond to, including your message.
> I'm sorry that my comments so deeply bothered you that
> they stuck in your craw and brought you back to respond
> after all this time, I truly am, but, if you really need
> to have the last laugh, it's such claims as the above
> that you are going to have to prove.