Re: Optional Soundlaws

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:

> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >

> > > > For example, n > l (opt.) is the same as a law n > l OR n > n
> > > > (analogous to 2 or -2 being the square root of 4).
> > >
> > > What do you intend the operator(?) '>' to stand for in that
> > > sentence?
> > > "Larger than" or "becomes"?
> >
> >
> > Use your best judgment.
>
> My best judgment tells me you don't know it yourself, but I'm a nice guy so I asked you, and now you've confirmed my assumption.

I'm glad you're not content to rest on your laurels, but insist on continuing to display previously unmatched levels of idiocy every day. You have done what I thought might be impossible: proven yourself the biggest fool ever to use this list.

> > > > Many of these changes are known. Instead of criticizing my
> > > > methods, learn about what is already known. For example, in
> > > > Salishan, n and l alternate.
> > >
> > > I assume you don't mean the Salishan language family,
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salishan_languages
> > > but Salish proper
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Salish_language
> > > of which Wikipedia says
> > > 'It is also unusual in lacking a simple lateral approximant ... ',
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_approximant
> > > ie. it has no /l/.
> >
> >
> > Are you attempting to show the vast extent of your incompetence?
>
> No, yours.
>
>
> > Quoting from Wikipedia would mean next to nothing,
>
> What's with the subjunctive here? Is this a conditional statement? If so, conditioned on what?

Notice the "if" coming up.

> > even if those very pages didn't have many instances showing your
> > interpretation wrong like saying Salish = Montana Salish there
>
> That's what Wikipedia is saying, Salish = Montana Salish, and I am quoting from it. I have no interpretation of that.

You are incapable of reading or understanding it. It said that since Salish = Salishan Languages or Salish = Sélis^ = Montana Salish (since the one language gave the name to the whole family), they would avoid ambiguity by using only "Montana Salish" instead of "Salish" for the language.

> > to distinguish it from ambiguous Salish = Salishan Languages also,
> > or Flathead = Salish = S�lis^ = Montana Salish (with S�lis^
> > [seIlIS] ), [sq�llu], etc.
>
> English, my friend. Do you speak it? What does this sentence mean?
>
>
> > For most Salishan Languages, saying 'It is also unusual in lacking a
> > simple lateral approximant ... ' would mean
>
> Another conditional? Conditioned on what?
>
> > that it has n which varies with l (for Montana Salish, they probably
> > mean that l varies with � (a lateral fricative),
>
> No, saying that a language doesn't have a simple lateral fricative (ie. /l/) does not mean that it has a simple lateral fricative (ie. /l/) alternating with /n/ or another lateral fricative, and no amount of conditional subjunctives will change that.

Did you read the page? It shows many examples of words from Montana Salish with l, such as sélis^ (the NAME of the language!!!, compare other Salishan languages like Saanich (sënc^áTën \ sénëc^qën)), sqWëllú 'tale', etc. Why is one sentence supposedly able to prove me wrong when other examples show me right? I don't know who wrote what, or care. The sentence is almost meaningless, considering how many things it could mean in the context of Salish languages, of which you seem to know nothing.

> > Contrary to your ill-based belief,
>
> I don't have a belief. I quoted Wikipedia.

There's no reason to quote it, believe it, use it as evidence, etc.

> > Montana Salish possesses both the sounds n and l, whatever their
> > phonetic status.
>
>
> If you disagree with Wikipedia, why don't you update it? It's open for anyone, they like to have experts correct them.

That page, like many others, could be a mix from people with various degrees of knowledge, quoting dialects as if the whole, etc. I have no reason to go through and attempt to put everything right, especially since it wouldn't help any discerning person.

> > I used "Salish" in a broad way, also describing the situation in
> > Proto-Salish
>
> Whatever you described, it wasn't the situation in Montana Salish. Do you have a reference on the n/l situation in Proto-Salishan?
>
> > and modern Salishan Languages like Klallam.
>
> Oh, so it was Klallam. Do you have a reference on the n/l situation in Klallam?

I never mentioned Montana Salish; you decided I did with no good ev., look for what you want to know yourself. If everything I say is either misunderstood by you or asserted to be wrong based on no good ev., I won't try.