Re: Stacking up on standard works

At 5:33:42 AM on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, Tavi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>>> Broadly speaking, that's a feature, not a bug. In
>>> particular, when such a derivation is possible without
>>> unreasonable contortions, it necessarily has primacy.
>>> This isn't to say that it can't be displaced if a better
>>> derivation is found, but the bar for any alternative is
>>> pretty high.

>>> I politely disagree. IMHO this approach is like trying
>>> to collect apples from a tree regardless of it being an
>>> apple-tree or not (of course, if you choose the wrong
>>> tree you won't collect apples at all).

>> Which pretty much tells me that either you completely
>> ignored the qualifications in what I wrote, or you don't
>> understand how such reconstructions are actually done. The
>> point is that if you find something that looks very like an
>> apple in reasonable range of an appletree, the default
>> assumption is that it is an apple and did fall from that
>> tree.

> IMHO what IE-ists call "PIE" looks more like a bramble
> than an appletree.

Who cares? And what on earth gives you the idea that this
is in any way responsive to the real point, which is
methodological?

> If you had read Don Quixote, you'll know he mistook wind
> mills by giants.

Your subjunctive is based on a misapprehension: I *have*
read _Don Quixote_. I can even hear the appropriate
movement of Telemann's 'Don Quixote Suite' in the back of my
mind when I think of the windmill episode.

>>> That is, you can't simply use "PIE" at will to derive a
>>> Latin word without considering 1) the productivity of
>>> the "root" *wed- 'water' in Latin and 2) the words
>>> 'glass' and 'woad' in other IE languages.

>> You certainly can, if a defensible derivation is
>> available. Indeed, you *must*. *Then* one can argue about
>> how convincing the derivation actually is, and part of
>> that argument way well take (1) and (2) into account.

> 1) The root *wed- is only attested in zero-grade in Latin
> unda 'wave'. Also the proposed sound shift *dr- > tr-
> doesn't look as a "regular" one.

> 2) Words for 'glass' and 'woad' in other IE languages
> aren't derived from 'water'.

> When combined, (1) and (2) make De Vaan's etymology
> unfeasible.

No, they don't. They merely make it uncertain, something
that no one, I think, has disputed.

>> And I'm getting really fed up with your silly scare
>> quotes. I don't give a damn about your private
>> terminology: 'PIE' has a well-accepted and
>> well-understood meaning, and you can damned well
>> acknowledge that fact and use the term properly instead
>> of pretending that everyone is out of step except you.

> I'm affraid your last statement is grossly inaccurate. As
> I said several times, I belong to a minority group of
> researchers who think the traditional PIE model is
> inadequate and have proposed an alternative view.

Yes, I know: there is a small community of 'linguists', some
of whom even have relevant academic credentials, who want to
throw out most of what's been learned in the last 100+ years.
In biology there are proponents of so-called intelligent
design with relevant academic credentials, too; that doesn't
mean that they aren't a fringe group that no one takes
seriously in scientific terms. You are also part of a
fringe group that hardly anyone takes seriously, and for
good reason, so you look very silly when you try to impose
your personal version of your little group's terminology on
a discussion outside that little group.

> I'd also recommend you moderate your tone ("fed up", "I
> don't give a damn", "damned"), as it doesn't really help
> to have a *scientific* discussion.

I don't expect to have one: you're not doing science.

>> I know that you're not capable of reliably recognizing bad
>> work, and I strongly suspect that 'laziness' is just an
>> insulting code word for 'willingness to take seriously views
>> that broadly fall within the mainstream of IE studies'.

> DeVaan's work is full of points where further
> investigation is clearly needed, but instead of
> recognizing this, he apparently tends to give "hints" like
> e.g. ferrum could be a Phoenician borrowing. In a wider
> context, my remark refers to the unwillingness of most
> IE-ists (although fortunately not all) to broad their
> research outside the walls of mainstream IE studies, which
> include the study of substrates, comparison with other
> families, and so on.

> I didn't intended this as "insulting",

Then either you chose your words very poorly, or you don't
understand that accusing a scholar of laziness is extremely
insulting, especially when what you apparently really mean
is that he doesn't share your offbeat ideas.

> but if you feel "insulted", I bet you've got a problem.

It's de Vaan whom you insulted, not me. Besides, in order
to feel insulted, I'd have to think that your opinion
mattered.

Brian