Re: dive (was Re: Sos-)

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

[...]

>>>> "It includes 'sump' "swamp", thus it is not well-limited to
>>>> putative derivatives of the Uralic 'mouth' word"

>>>> My argument of semantical well-limitedness is based on the
>>>> data; your "counterargument" appears to be based on just
>>>> restating your proposal.

>>> But the semantics of "swamp" also occurs in Finnic *so:- which
>>> means that if we posit that the semantic 'suck' group and the
>>> semantic 'swamp' group are from the same substrate language, they
>>> would have been indistinguishable in that language.

>> It is again a circular argument that "if we assume (or 'posit')
>> they come from something identical, then they come from something
>> identical".

> You got it all wrong again. It's 'if we assume they come from something
> identical, then we assume they come from something identical'.

Yes, that is what you actually said. But there's no point in the
assertion unless you wish to draw conclusions from the assumption --
as indeed you do. Thus, your present objection, though technically
correct, is in fact a pointless quibble.

[...]

>>>>> but then I got the idea that it could be handled by deriving
>>>>> the auslaut consonants from the diphthongs which were the
>>>>> result of the denasalisation of the nasal vowel I posited for
>>>>> another reason (that of accounting for the a/u alternation).

>>>> This is where you go off the track of conclusions and into the
>>>> woods of wild speculation.

>>> Do you have any factual objection here?

>> Yes: you have provided no factual argument.

> I repeat: Do you have any factual objection here? Please answer
> the question.

Why? The question of whether you have any factual argument is
clearly prior.

[...]

>>>> it seems to be quite possible to just speculate
>>>> without ever getting to the level of real arguments.
>>>> At that point the burden of proof (or, more correctly, burden
>>>> of argumentation) is still on you.

>>> What? When?

>> Perhaps you do not fully understand what the term means.

> What seems to be the case here is that you either don't understand, or
> don't want to understand that there is no burden of proof on me.

Yes, there is, as there is on anyone who makes a scholarly proposal.
Of course you're free to declare that you're merely indulging in empty
speculation and not engaging in any kind of scholarship at all, but
then you can hardly expect anyone to take an interest (except,
perhaps, when you post something exceptionally wrong-headed).

Brian