2012/4/29, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> As I said before, your model (which is a flavour of the so-called PCT)
> relies on *unawarranted* assumptions such as the absence of language
> replacements, the projection of traditional PIE reconstructions
> (including e.g. morpohology) back to the Upper Paleolithic and so on. So
> actually it's you who has an *extraordinary* confidence in the validity
> of your theory.
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
This is the fourth time I pray You to see that the absence of
language replacements is NOT an assumption by my model, but the
consequence of its implementation. It's disappointing how You refuse
even the statements about my own model. It's my model, not Yours. I
know it better than You. In order to arrive at an opinion (because
it's just an opinion, like Your one) about the presence or absence of
language replacements in Prehistory - since there's no General Law
about language replacements - it's sufficient to rely on the mass of
PIE etymologies based on my only assumption, the projection of PIE
reconstructions (not even morphology: phonology and lexicon are
enough) back to before the Neolithic (there's no General Law as well
about the rate of linguistic change). So please AT LEAST describe
correctly my model. This one (extension of PIE phonology and lexicon
from Palaeolithic to Calcholithic) is my only assumption; You
disagree; there's no need to add another assumption (with which You
would disagree too). OK?
As for the confidence, the difference is that: You think Your
model is the only possible one, I think that Your model and my one and
various other ones are possible. Your confidence is greater that mine
(and this is Your right). You a priori exclude every model apart Your
one. You have much more self-confidence than me. As a consequence, if
my confidence in my assumptions is extraordinary, Your one is even
greater. This is mathematical quantification
Tavi:
> Thus you should be aware that the IE lexemes and morphemes aren't all
> equally old. In the case of IE, most of these Neolithic lexicon
> (including some numerals) was borrowed from other languages, mainly
> Vasco-Caucasian and Semitic.
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Have You ever heard about System, Norm, and Usage (de Saussure, Coseriu)?
As for usage, lexicalized combinations of roots and affixes aren't
equally old; as for norm and in any case for system, they are all
equally old (excepting loans, of course). Usage is almost never
reconstructible; the system is. Only external history can give an aid.
Consider e.g. the name Newfoundland: we know from history when it was
born as name for that particular land, but the compound
*newo-pntó-lom[H]-dhh1-o-m is already PIE, i.e. PIE system already had
a compound *newo-pntó-lom[H]-dhh1-o-m, whose morpho-lexical meaning
was 'new found (place) where (humans) have put a cleavage'
Loans appear as isoglosses between languages. They are
distinguished from hereditary isoglosses by divergences in diachronic
phonology. If there aren't such divergences, a paramount difference in
the distribution of cognates can be a valid hint (but no more than
that); otherwise there's no way to decide whether they are genetic
cognates or loans and, if loans, the direction of the loan process
Tavi:
>> My model is multi-layer, i.e. I study the various
> lexicon
>> > layers in a given language (which are consequence of language
> contact
>> > and/or replacement processes) and their external relationships.
>>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I know that Your model is a multi-layer one. Don't You believe
that I know that? I state again: Your model is multi-layer; Your model
is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer;
Your model is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer; Your model is
multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer; Your model is multi-layer;
Your model is multi-layer!