dive (was Re: Sos-)

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

>
> I was planning to leave this trainwreck for now, but what the heck,
> this seems to be getting into some key issues, so here goes.
>
> > > My factual objection IS that you in fact have provided no
> > > factual argument.
> >
> > That is not a factual objection to any of the assumptions I make,
> > but an unspecified objection to all of them.
>
> Yes, it is an objection to your general methodology. Do you have a
> problem with me doing that?

I can't answer an unspecified objection, so I won't.

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Problem_of_Induction
> > '...no assumption can ever be or needs ever to be justified, so a
> > lack of justification is not a justification for doubt'
>
> And thus,

Non sequitur. Arbitrary.

> these days by "justification" we should not understand
> "proof", as they still apparently did in Popper's time, but
> "demonstration that the assumption economically explains stuff".

???
In Poppers time, '...no assumption can ever be or needs ever to be justified, so a lack of justification is not a justification for doubt' was understood as '...no assumption can ever be or needs ever to be justified, so a lack of proof is not a proof for doubt', but now '...no assumption can ever be or needs ever to be justified, so a lack of demonstration that the assumption economically explains stuff is not a demonstration that the assumption economically explains stuff for doubt'.?
???
What is the matter with you?

>
> > > Re: your reply to Brian, let me clarify I'm not requesting
> > > "proof" and at no point have I;
> >
> > Why talk about 'burden of proof' then?
>
> Since it's accepted standard terminology.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
>
> > You got some nerve - first you weasel switch the definition of
> > what you said earlier
>
> No, my definition has remained constant,

No, your tactical goal is the same, namely to pressure me present an application to have my proposal accepted, which you then will refuse to give on various subjective grounds for so long until I give up, and in order to achieve that goal you changed your demand into something you imagined would make me take the bait.

> but I'm glad to see your understanding of it has progressed beyond
> literalism.

Is there any factual content in this piece of nastiness?

> > > translated to your Popperist terminology, this is indeed
> > > essentially a request to "show that your assumption explains
> > > more with less than the existing theories".
> >
> > Ok, so now you redefine what you meant by 'burden of proof'.
>
> Not "redefine", I'm transcribing my point to your terms since you
> seem to be incapable of talking in any others.

Transcribing, haha. You are being tactical.
Of course like everyone else I use the terms of the method I find most appropriate.

> > > you apparently only explain more data by using MORE assumptions
> > > than the theories thus far, which is a non-achievement.
> >
> > Okay, so this is now your objection to my *presentation* of my
> > theory.
>
> If it's only a presentation issue, you really need to work on that.

Another contentless nastiness.

> (Tho it IS nothing new that you rarely bother to explicitely state
> much about your thesis, beyond "I think this huge list of words is
> somehow related")

My proposal was that this huge list of words might be related by the nasal vowel rule I gave.

> > to defeat a theory, you can do three things:
> >
> > 1) show that it doesn't show what it purports to show, or that
> > there is logical flaw in its inferences (primary method)
> > 2) show that some other theory shows more with the same
> > (secondary)
> > 3) show that some other theory shows the same with less
> > (secondary)
>
> I agree loosely, tho I would call scenario 2) an extension rather
> than a defeat of the theory, and split 1) into its two constituent
> cases. Of these the first is the one I think you're failing the
> hardest on, tho depending on what exactly it is you purport to have
> shown.

Erh, whatever.

>
> > The competition my theory has is two:
> >
> > 1) The theory that there were no substrate languages in NW Europe
> > or if there were they left no marks on either IE or Uralic,
> > therefore only inner developments within IE and Uralic should be
> > posited for any word in those languages.
> >
> > 2) The theory that there existed besides PIE and Uralic in NW
> > Europe also
> > i) Kuhn's ur-/ur- language (NWBlock I),
> > ii) Schrijver's language of geminates, and
> > iii) Schrijver's language of bird names
>
> False trichotomy. Numerous other explanations are possible, for
> example that Kuhn's ar/ur-language did exist, but the "language of
> geminates" is simply an artifact of Germanic/Celtic/other languages
> of the area loaning from substrates that didn't contrast gemination
> and representing their consonants as sometimes singletons,
> sometimes geminates.

Are you proposing that? Because if you do, that would be part of the competition.

> Remember, that some theories have not been proposed yet does not
> mean that no further theories would be possible.

Huh?
You really think I'm an idiot, don't you?
I mentioned what was the competition to my proposal, ie. the proposals that have been stated already. Potential proposals, inasmuch as they have not yet been made, are not part of that competition.

> > As for theory 1 I don't consider it competition; there is
> > sufficient consensus for me that there must have been now extinct
> > languages in NW Europe influencing PIE and Uralic.
>
> Yep.
>
> > As for theory 2 I have proposed that i - iii are one and the same
> > language, since the vocabularies ascribed to them overlap. So my
> > theory explains the same with less than 2)
>
> Less explicitely assumed languages,

Less than the competition has.

> but more assumptions of phonetic developments.

No, because the competition has no explanation of the phonetic development. Your objection is based on a misapplication of terms.

> And as there most likely were numerous substrate languages anyway,
> getting the number of languages down is not a particularly pressing
> concern.

But I suspect there was one big one, which had to do with the salt trade. And reducing the number of assumed entities is what Occam tells us to do.

> Actually, you've also told you do not consider there having been a
> single language, but several related languages, so you don't even
> reach that. So what does your theory exactly have less of?

One language family, as opposed to several languages.

> I don't see vocabulary overlap as much of problem as there is no
> law that would prohibit substrates having loaned words from one
> another.

I don't understand what you mean by 'vocabulary overlap'.

> Anyway, the existence of N specific substrates is not all you're up
> against. In most cases (eg. *saiwa vs. *sal) I think you've not
> even managed to defeat the null hypothesis of "unrelated".

M'kay.

> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, you're trying to disprove.
>
> No. Disproof doesn't really exist, so far as "proof" can only be
> understood as "demonstration".

You are making no sense. Of course you can disprove a proposal. Read the Popper article again.

> I'm batting for the null hypothesis here.

OK.

> If it makes you happier, I can concede that everything you've
> proposed is *possible*. As is that you're about to be lick'd by an
> invisible dragon.

That would imply that dragons exist, which is a new type of entity, so that would have to be shown. I am proposing the existence of an otherwise unattested language from words which 'stick out' in other languages. Several such languages have been proposed before by others, therefore I don't have to show the existence of that type of entity.

> But as a skeptic I don't really care about mere possibility, only
> plausibility.

As me, I don't care what you care about. If you have factual objections, do present them, otherwise just butt out.

> > > The "semantic dividing lines do not match"? So what?
> >
> > So your argument doesn't work
>
> I do not follow. AFAIK I've based no argument on "semantic division
> lines matching".

No, that was me did that.

>
> > This
> (…alternations…)
> > is how the phonetic rule in
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65884
> > should have been presented, it is not dependent the preceding *d-
>
> Yeah, I kno.
>
> > > > An example is the dividing line you set up between the "suck"
> > > > and the "sump" roots.
> > >
> >
> > That 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.
>
> It is not set up by me:

No, it is set up by Pokorny.

> "suck" continues to not mean the same as "swamp",

I don't think I said that.

> but I guess if you dislike that, you do have the right to ignore
> reality.
>
> > de Vries
> > 'súgr m. 'sea' (poet.), lit. 'the sucking (one)'
>
> "Sea" does not equate with "swamp".

Plenty of water in it.

> "Swamp" does not equate with "sucking".

Who talks about 'equate'?

> "Sucking" does not equate with "to suck".

Erh, what?

> > > 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",
>
> Why should there be? I've not argued that the structure of the
> "*daN" and "*saN" sets is the same.

I did.

> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > You don't mean the other way around?
>
> Nope. You're not confused on which of "former" and "latter" is
> which?

Let me see if I understood you right. You are "convinced that not X", and you are not "not convinced that X" (whatever X is)?

> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Yes, and therefore I also believe those semantic fields I
> > mentioned are connected.
>
> All semantic FIELDS are "connected". The question is how much
> semantic ground some specific WORD covers. In this case, *saiwa
> covers both hydronymic and sacred territory; *sal- "island" only
> covers the former. As far as hydronyms go, it also only covers
> "island", and *saiwa only covers "lake". No overlap.

But I presented many more than those two words, which you very well know, since you complained about it, and those *do* overlap, transitively.

> You seem to have skipped over the question of IF these are related
> at all, before venturing into the "how". Sure, you can just assume
> a relationship, but your results can only be as strong as your
> weakest assumption.

The question of if they are related hinges on whether someone shows they can't have been, ie the discussion of the proposal. Therefore the proposal must be made before that question can be answered.

> Then again, I'm still not sure if you've claimed any actual results.

I know you desperately want me to have claimed something you can refuse, but I haven't.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > You don't need to postulate anything drastic semantically to
> > connect "salt" and "sacred"
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt#In_religion
>
> I said "numerous", not "drastic". Certainly the assumption of a
> religion in which salt plays a role is possible,

This is not an assumption. The connection of salt and religion is a fact.

> as is that speakers of such a culture could have etymologically
> connected words for "sacred" and "salt". This still doesn't stop
> these from BEING new requisite assumptions.

Fact.

> You do see that, do you?

I'm afraid you're alone on that one.

> "Requiring assumptions not previously made" would make a good
> definition of "non-trivial" for me.

OK.

> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> I've not been arguing against loan origin, I've been arguing
> against your previous claim that the a/o: alternation is in some
> fashion the same as (or as you put it, "manifested as") the a/u
> alternation.

Where did I claim that?
Here are some pertinent facts:

Ernout-Meillet:
'scabo:, -is, sca:bi: (1 ex. de sca:berat dans Lucilius, cité par Priscien, GLK II 507,1), scabere: gratter, se gratter.
Mot de la 1. familière.
Formes nominales et dérivés:
scabie:s,-ei f. (et scabia) "aspérité, rugosité" et "gale, lèpre, démangeaison" (sens physique et moral).
Ancien (Cat.); technique et familier. M.L.7634.
De là scabio:, pso:rio:~, Pelag.,
scabia:lis,
scabidus,
scabio:sus, M.L.7635,
scabitu:do:,
scabiola;
scaber, -bra,-brum (forme dialectale scafer: tofus inaequalis, CGL V 243,2?): rugueux, raboteux (sens phys. et moral), galeux, M.L. 7633a;
scabra, -o:rum "dépôts, sédiments". De là:
scabreo:,
scabra:tus, d'où *scabra:re, M.L.7636,
scabre:do:,
scabre:s (Varr.),
scabridus;
scabritia (-tie:s), Plin., Col.
Avec vocalisme o de la racine:
scobis,-is f. (et scobs dans Prisc. GLK II 330,24): râpure, raclure, copeau, etc.;
scobi:na f.: râpe; écoine;
de:scobi:na:tus, Varr. ap. Non.99,25
(cf. deascia:ri:, de:runcina:tus dans Plaute).
Les formes romanes remontent à sco:bïna et scoffi:na, ce dernier sans doute dialectal, M.L. 7729.
Scabo: est un verbe technique à vocalisme radical a; par scobis, on voit que la racine avait la forme (*skebh-), *skobh-. Le perfectum sca:bi: a été fait sur scabo:, peut-être par Lucilius. On ne saurait dire si l'on a a ou o dans
got. skaban "gratter",
lit. skabiù, skõbti "gratter",
v. russe skoblI
désignant sans doute une sorte de couteau à racler. Le grec a a dans le groupe de skápto:; mais le sens est "creuser", et, en considération de
pers. s^ika:fað "il fend",
ka:fað "il creuse",
dont f suppose ph, on ne peut dire si le ph de
skáphos "action de sarcler, bêcher",
skaphé: "tombeau" et de
1'aor. `eskáphe:n
repose sur bh ou sur ph; le p de
lette kaps "tombeau" est ambigu, de même que celui de
v.sl. kopati "creuser";
le grec a p dans kópto: "je frappe",
kópos "coup, fatigue", etc.
V. scapula.
Il y a ici une racine d'emploi technique à formes variées et à sens variés.
...

scapulae, -a:rum f.pl. (singulier rare et tardif, Vulg.): épaules;
sens techniques: bras d'une machine (Vitr.);
croupe d'une montagne (Tert.).
Ancien (Cat., Pl.), usuel;
sert de cognomen: Scapula, d'où Scapula:nus.
Peu représenté dans les l. romanes, cf. M.L.7657, où il a été remplacé par spatula.
Dérivé tardif: scapula:re n.
Irl. scabal "scapulaire".
En ombrien, on lit une fois
destrame scalpa "in dextram scapulam".
L'explication du mot par la racine de
gr. skápto: "je creuse", etc.,
qu'on justifie par le fait que les os des omoplates servaient de bêches à creuser la terre, est évidemment hypothétique; cf. la substitution postérieure de spatula à scapula.
V. scabo:;
les omoplates ont pu, du reste, être nommées d'après leurs ressemblances avec des bêches. M. J. Bloch signale marathe khava:, de skapaka.'
'

In other words: the perfect / strong preterite of this verb in -a- might have had -a:-, but there were also derivatives with -o-.

>
> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > That might be the case for the triliteralized loans in Hebrew you
> > mentioned. It's not a universal law.
>
> Just about by definition, productiv alternations are recognizable.

Calling an alternation productive doesn't make it universally so.

> What exactly you're trying to say? That Proto-Germans inflected
> these words as class VI because they didn't understand their own
> forms in other classes anymore?

No, because the alternations involved would make the word unrecognizable. English does not adopt loaned verbs as strong verbs either. He vamooses, he vamose?

>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Occam. You explain the same with more.
> >
> > You need to assume the existence of two vowels instead of one.
> > Fail.
>
> Ah, I see, you're ignoring the principle of uniformitarianism.

Erh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

> EVERY human language that has nasal vowels, also has corresponding
> oral vowels.

Oh, that one.

> So your supposed substrate must've had too - or otherwise you're
> covertly assuming it to have been fundamentally different from all
> known human languages. This is a considerably bigger assumption
> than the existence of an oral vowel phone(me).

True, and that has been bothering me too, which is why I wrote this:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66032

>
> > > > These words have variants with nasals.
> > >
> > > What "these words"? I am precisely speaking of cases where
> > > there AREN'T variants with nasals, e.g. "suck".
> >
> > Da. synke (< *sinkW- < *senkW- ?< *sunkW- < *sunk-; sank, sunket
> > class III, but cf Sw. sjunka, sjönk, sjunkit, class II,
> > recategorized or ?) means
> > 1. "to sink" (intr.)
> > 2. "to swallow" (tr. and intr.)
>
> "Sink, swallow" does not equate with "suck". You have difficulties
> respecting semantic boundaries, that's for certain.

I'm afraid I won't respect the semantic boundary which you imagine there to be between "suck" and "swallow".

>
> > Sogn m. ON. 'Sognefjord', auch 'see' (poet.),
> > vgl. schw. sugn 'Wasserfall'.
> > -" Nach der saugung des wassers genannt
> > (s O. Rygh, Norske Gaardnavne 1, 325),
> > zu súga.
>
> A derivative "sucking", not the SAME word as "suck".

'Derivative sucking', hahaha. You made my day. Swamps suck too.

>
> > lit. sunkiù, súñkti 'absickern lassen',
> > lett. su:zu, su:kt 'saugen'.
>
> I don't kno enuff about Baltic to see if this adds up to a single
> Proto-(East) Baltic root, or if we have to set up two distinct
> roots (with the latter then belonging together with Germanic
> "suck", and the former left hanging or related to "sink").

OK.

> (...)
> > The irregularity of the vowel of the first syllable in Saami is
> > not without parallels; a *u in the protolanguage many times
> > corresponds also to Saami â,
> >
> > Note: a/u alternation badly explained.
>
>
> Northern Sami â comes from Proto-Samic *ë (an unrounded mid back
> vowel, remains as such in Eastern Sami) which regularly comes from
> PU *i. PU *u regularly becomes Proto-Samic *o. Confirmation bias at
> work: at no point is there an a/u alternation here.
>
> This particular alternation is one of mid back vowel labiality, ie.
> between PSm *ë and *o. It occurs mostly in the vicinity of labial
> consonants. Seems about as well-explained as an irregular vowel
> alternation can be.

UEW disagrees, which you elided:
'The irregularity of the vowel of the first syllable in Saami is not without parallels; a *u in the protolanguage many times corresponds also to Saami â'


Torsten