Re: Stacking up on standard works

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

>
> > 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.
>

Then it looks like De Vaan prefers a bad etymology to having none at all.

> 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.
>

The worst thing which can happen to science is when it becomes *dogma*. And I'm afraid "most of what's been learned in the last 100+ years" in IE studies has become that.

> 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'm afraid truth can't be decided by a majority vote. This belongs to *politics*, not science.

> > 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.
>

Neither are you. You stand on dogma.

> > 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.
>

Not really. Instead of suggesting the Latin word for 'iron' was borrowed from "some Phoenician dialect", De Vaan could have done a little bibliography research and so he'd have learned that iron was introduced to Italy by the Villanovan culture, which archaeologists associate with Etruscans. And with a little more work, he could also have found the relevant literature about the ultimate origin of this Wanderwort.

If I were to pay $300 or $400 for De Vaan's book, the least I'd expect is he had done a thoroughly research instead of simply quoting older works and repeat their mistakes like cheap books do.

> > 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.
>

Actually, I could think the same of yours. :-)