From: Torsten
Message: 65889
Date: 2010-02-24
>Yes, for a rule or set of rules which lead to empirical forms that is true. But to demand direct falsifiability of a rule which leads to reconstructed forms, eg in Proto-Germanic from PIE, is meaningless, and you know that.
> > > (At least the last three steps propose actual conditions. The
> > > initial six-way split does not seem to be even falsifiable.)
> >
> > Assumptions made in linguistic reconstructions rarely are;
>
> Soundlaws quite frequently are. A proposed soundlaw *k > t in
> English for example would be easily falsified by examples like
> "can", "wake", "king", "ask".
> > the best strategy for evaluation is a secondary one for PopperI don't understand what you mean.
> > and resembles Occam: most forms explained with fewest assumptions.
>
> And "unconditional split" is a fairly big assumption.
> > > > and getBecause it is difficult to do without making you look like a fool.
> > > >
> > > > *sá:-/*sák-/*sáp-/*sank´-/*samp´-
> > > > *sú:-/*súk-/*súp-/*sunk´-/*sump´-
> > > >
> > > > which would solve the 'Suomi' mystery
>
> > > Several possible etymologies exist, there's no need to posit a
> > > yet another one
> >
> > You don't really want me to comment on that, do you?
>
> Why wouldn't I?
> If we have X number of fairly plausible etymologies, adding oneThat's not what you just said, you added a new and subjective premise. Why are you cheating on the scale?
> that seems less plausible is not progress.
> If you can argue it to be more plausible than it appears at faceSo long as you present no argument against my hypothesis I think I'll go on regardless.
> value, then by all means go on.
>What exactly about it is it you object to?
> > > (at least one involving all sorts of hypothetical forms).
> >
> > Reconstructions are hypothesis. I thought you knew?
>
> Reconstructions within extant families are one layer of hypothesis.
> I'm referring to the substratal layer you're proposing underneath
> it, which does not appear to be a reconstruction in the comparativ
> sense.
>There are all the "suck" words here:
> > If you are asking for which forms it purports to explain
>
> Yes, that's exactly it.
>
> > look at 'sump' here:
> > http://runeberg.org/svetym/0995.html
>
> I don't see a need to assume any velar variants if that's all we
> are explaining.
>1. For "have", Slavic has a prepositional phrase with a locality preposition, Finnic has a local case (neither has dative as in Latin)
> > > > and on the connection to supposed PIE *pen- "swamp"
> > > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/63881
> > > > Funky.
> > >
> > > _Bagno_ with voiced stops and a common Slavic distribution
> > > quite clearly cannot be a loan from Finnic.
> >
> > Of course it can if the Slavic language family has a Finno-Ugric
> > substrate.
>
> Undemonstrated speculation.
> > The alternative is that both loaned from an unrelated substrate,Which entails that PIE had
> > ie the ar-/ur- etc language.
>
> False dichotomy. I'm going with the default alternativ of
> "unrelated".
>What would that prove?
> > > > Instead a loan *paN- ? Cf.
> > > >
> > > > 1 pin´: (Sal. pinli), pl. pi`n´n´&^D (neu: sùomli, pl. -st)
> > > > finne (finnländer);
> > > > s. pin´-mo:, pi`n´n´&^mìez.
> > >
> > > Transparently a loan from _Finn_. This provides no new insight.
> >
> > No exactly transparent. The one thing which points in that
> > direction
>
> Perhaps I should've said "transparently one is a loan from the
> other".
>
> > is the root -i- vs. Tacitus' -e- in Fenni, which makes it likely
> > the word participated in Gmc *-en- > *-in-.
>
> Another thing is that this word only occurs in Livonian.
> > > BTW note that there's no a/u "alternation" in "salt" in Uralic.Sorry, I was being imprecise: there is an alternation a/u within Uralic
> > > *a is regularly reflected as Komi /o/ ~ Udmurt /u/, and the
> > > latter under some conditions
> >
> > And they are?
>
> I've only seen the change mention'd in literature in passing (and
> I've yet to read the latest treatise on Permic historical
> phonology).
>
>
> > Okay, so there is a/u alternation in Komi and Udmurt, under some
> > conditions.
>
> Um no, I said there's a development u > ï in Udmurt in some words
> in some dialects (no alternation, no /a/, and not in Komi).
>???
> > > Connecting this to "salt" has semantical problems, /ï/; long
> > > *a: regularly > *o: in Finnic.
> >
> > Don't try connecting them in Finnic then.
>
> You managed to mess my quote somehow. That vowel part went with the
> previous section.
> The semantic gap between "island" and "salt" does not seem anyThe semantic gap between "island" and "salt" is the same in all languages since it is a semantic gap.
> smaller in other languages.
> > The a/u-alternation I am referring to is that of the ar-/ur-OK, so aN >> (o: >) u:.
> > language; I suspect it arises from denasalization of a nasal
> > vowel -aN- (cf. -aN- > -u- in Russian).
>
> That has no relation to denasalization; it's a~: > o~: > o: > u: >
> u, plain old long vowel raising.
> > The nasalization might have been 'sweated out' in auslaut as anSee below.
> > -n# which was then rhotacized > -r#,
>
> Is this a hypothetical or evidenced rhotacism?
> > which means there must have been a word or morpheme boundaryIt gives me an alternative way to explain the prenasalized forms.
> > after the -ar-'s and -ur-'s Kuhn found in river names etc.
>
> So you've now turn'd an apparent ar/ur alternation into a
> hypothetized aN/uN alternation. What did this accomplish, other
> than the addition of some extra assumptions?