From: Torsten
Message: 65993
Date: 2010-03-18
>That is not a factual objection to any of the assumptions I make, but an unspecified objection to all of them. And I don't have to provide any justification or 'factual argument'. Read the paragraph again.
> > > > > > 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"Why talk about 'burden of proof' then?
> and at no point have I;
> In case you do not understand the meaning of those wordsYou got some nerve - first you weasel switch the definition of what you said earlier and then you ward off criticism of it by attributing any impression of it to my supposed ignorance.
> - they very much do not mean "proof of absolute truth"And I know what you don't intend it to mean.
> (I hold it to be elementary that no such thing can exist inThen what are you talking about? It obviously can't have been anything to do with the Popper framework, since you never referred to him before I did.
> science, and so I am confused why you would assume me to have meant
> that) -
> translated to your Popperist terminology, this is indeedOk, so now you redefine what you meant by 'burden of proof'.
> 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 doneThat can't have been your objection, since you just redefined it.
> this:
> you apparently only explain more data by using MORE assumptions (ofOkay, so this is now your objection to my *presentation* of my theory.
> 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 forWell, you're trying to disprove.
> > > > 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?So your argument doesn't work
> > > But perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "similaritiesThat was an example of a semantic division set up by you, the one between what might be called the "suck" words and the "sump" words.
> > > 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?You can't set up a corresponding dividing line between words meaning "duck" and "dump", so the possible semantic dividing lines there are dissimilar to the one you set up for "suck" and "sump".
> There is no systematic relationship between swamps and sucking.Well, suck on this:
> > > > > it seems to be quite possible to just speculateOf course there's no discussion of 'burden of proof' here. Doh!
> > > > > 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 yourSee above.
> 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;Don't be facetious.
> >
> > 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"I could comment on what you are trying to get away with here, but I better not.
> part in the logical sense), so you're attacking a strawman.
> > > > If you are convinced there's nothing to be solved, what areYou don't mean the other way around?
> > > > 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 youYes, and therefore I also believe those semantic fields I mentioned are connected.
> > > > > 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.You don't need to postulate anything drastic semantically to connect "salt" and "sacred"
>
> 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.
>So the a/o: alternation must have been present in PPGmc as a/a:, which is not an IE thing, which indicates the words involved were loans.
> > > > > > 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?
>That might be the case for the triliteralized loans in Hebrew you mentioned. It's not a universal law. Eventually something will come along which doesn't fit into the machinery.
> > > > 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.Occam. You explain the same with more.
> > > > >
> > > > > *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 doYou need to assume the existence of two vowels instead of one. Fail.
> not need to assume the existence of original nasality in all cases.
> > These words have variants with nasals.Da. synke (< *sinkW- < *senkW- ?< *sunkW- < *sunk-; sank, sunket class III, but cf Sw. sjunka, sjönk, sjunkit, class II, recategorized or ?) means
>
>
> 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 notde Vries
> assume that to be cognate.)