From: cafaristeir
Message: 67978
Date: 2011-08-09
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>
> At 1:31:10 PM on Sunday, August 7, 2011, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> You haven't actually addressed the assertion that
> >> *-mh1nó- is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments
> >> suppor[t] it; you've merely asserted a contrary opinion.
> >> And after what I've seen of your opinions, methodology,
> >> and judgement over the years, I've little reason to take
> >> any of them seriously.
>
> > That is not true.
>
> Don't be ridiculous: you've addressed neither the Tocharian
> etyma nor the arguments in question.
>
> > I gave plenty of ev. in favor of my theory and against
> > yours;
>
> I disagree, but it doesn't matter, since that's beside the
> point, which is that you very obviously have not addressed
> the specific problem mentioned by Ringe.
>
> > far more than you provided for it.
>
> I offered no theory concerning the suffix and provided no
> evidence for one. I provided evidence that your assertion
> that 'There's no ev. for -H1- or any other H here' is false.
>
> > It seems you've chosen ignore ev. I provide.
>
> Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant to the
> present issue. However, I'm willing to address this one as
> well.
>
> You have far more linguistic data at your command than I
> have (though as some real linguists have occasionally
> demonstrated, not so much as you think), so it not
> infrequently happens that I can't evaluate your evidence
> myself. When I can, I'm generally not convinced, so I look
> upon the rest with an exceedingly jaundiced eye. In short,
> I reject or simply fail to be convinced by most of the
> purported evidence that I *can* judge and therefore cannot
> but be doubtfully agnostic (at best) about most of the rest.
> This skepticism is reinforced by the fact -- obvious for a
> long time now -- that you don't really know what to do with
> your data: your methods are a parody -- sophisticated and
> unintentional, but still a parody -- of the real thing, and
> you remain resolutely blind to their serious flaws even when
> these are explicitly pointed out. As a result, there's very
> little common ground for serious linguistic discussion, and
> I no longer waste my time trying to find any; I merely
> comment occasionally on assertions that strike me as
> exceptionally wrong-headed or that concern topics about
> which I know a fair bit.
>
> Bluntly, sophisticated crackpottery is still crackpottery,
> and being serious about doing linguistics in no guarantee of
> doing serious linguistics.
>
> Brian
>