dive (was Re: Sos-)

> > > > > 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.

My factual objection IS that you in fact have provided no factual argument. Re: your reply to Brian, let me clarify I'm not requesting "proof" and at no point have I; I'm requesting factual evidence.

In case you do not understand the meaning of those words - they very much do not mean "proof of absolute truth" (I hold it to be elementary that no such thing can exist in science, and so I am confused why you would assume me to have meant that) - translated to your Popperist terminology, this is indeed essentially a request to "show that your assumption explains more with less than the existing theories".

So in more detail, my objection is that you in fact have not done this: you apparently only explain more data by using MORE assumptions (of phonetical developments, semantical drift, existence of cultural habits in areas where they have not been attested, etc) than the theories thus far, which is a non-achievement.

> > > The problem is, the semantic dividing lines you can set up for
> > > my proposed set of reflexes of *saN-, do not match similar
> > > semantic dividing lines in reflexes of *daN-.
> >
> > Semantic dividing lines are not required to conform to any
> > pattern if these are originally unrelated roots.
>
> Yes, that is your assumption, but you can't use your assumption to prove things, as you pointed out yourself.

True, but there's nothing I'm trying to proov. The "semantic dividing lines do not match"? So what?

> > But perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "similarities
> > between semantic divisions"?
>
> An example is the dividing line you set up between the "suck" and the "sump" roots.

And what is this similar to, and in what way? There is no systematic relationship between swamps and sucking.

> > > > 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. I'll give you a last chance
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Problem_of_Induction

There's no discussion of the concept here. It is tho quite feasible to transfer this concept too to your framework. You are proposing a theory that explains more with less assumptions? "Burden of proof" in this case consists of showing that it indeed explains more data, and by indeed using less assumptions.

> > It's not a legal or moral obligation;
>
> Of course it is, or it wouldn't have been called 'burden'

Don't be so literalist. At the very least I am not using it in that sense (nor the "proof" part in the logical sense), so you're attacking a strawman.

> > > If you are convinced there's nothing to be solved, what are you
> > > doing in linguistics?
> >
> > There's a distinction between "not convinced that X" (aka
> > skepticism) and "convinced that not X" (aka disbelief).
>
> And how is this relevant?

In that I'm the latter, not former as you just implied.

> > > > I'll continue to simply reject the comparision if you cannot
> > > > come up with any argument better than "they all have /sal/"
> > > > for why we should attempt to relate these.
> > >
> > > They have to with "soul", "immortality", "truth" and "the
> > > otherworld". That's why it's interesting to find out how they
> > > are related.
> >
> > "Salt", "saliva", "island", "slush" have nothing to do with those
> > topics.
>
> The guy who first proposed a connection between *saiwa- "lake" and *saiwala- "soul" is the one who committed the original sin. I'm just trying to find a semantic connection between them.

According to what you've cited so far that one means not simply "lake", but "sacred lake", "water used for divination". This DOES have to do with "soul", "truth" etc.

> The rest are trivial.

They are not. Connecting *saiwa and *saiwala requires no assumptions about sound changes affecting the root, only suffixation of /-la/; likewise we require only minor semantical changes ("soul" probably suffices as an original to begin with). Connecting something like "salt" by contrast requires numerous assumptions of phonetical and semantical changes.

> > > > > The alternation is also manifested as a/o:, BTW.
> > > > >
> > > > > Germanic: cake/cookie, hat/hood etc and the whole Class
> > > > > VI strong verbs
> >
> > > > /o:/ is not /u/.
> > >
> > > That's true, but those alternations seem to appear in the same
> > > contexts.
> >
> > Which are?
>
> Eg. the *draN- "draw" verb
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/61626
> it has a/u-alternation, and the verb itself is a class VI verb.

And... you just outlined how class VI verbs would in your view have develop'd within Germanic; ie. the a/u alternation does not manifest itself as a/o: after all. Now what?

> > > Verbs loaned at that time would have been too drastically
> > > changed to be recognized if patterned on the existing ablauting
> > > verbs,

> > There's no reason the loan-givers would still have to recognize
> > the word,
>
> ? No, but the loan-receivers would.

Yeah, so they recognize it, and proceed to inflect it in an usual sense. If they can uphold ablaut as productiv, they can recognize each form involved in it.

> > > > > > Or varying reflexes of an *o.
> > > >
> > > > *o merged with *a or *u.
> > >
> > > That would be possible, but it wouldn't explain the forms with
> > > prenasalised auslaut.
> >
> > It doesn't attempt to. Those I could explain from, say, nasalized
> > vowels.
>
> Ok, so you argue that the source of the a/u alternation might be a non-nasalized vowel *o, and now you nasalize it again?

I am proposing eg. the existence of both non-nasal *o, and nasal *o~ (as a possibility to explain ). Or equivalently, a single *o and a biphonemic structure such as *on.

This is in fact a case of LESS assumptions than you have made: I do not need to assume the existence of original nasality in all cases.

> These words have variants with nasals.

> Torsten

What "these words"? I am precisely speaking of cases where there AREN'T variants with nasals, e.g. "suck".

(And I reiterate that "swamp" does not mean "suck", so I will not assume that to be cognate.)

John Vertical