Re: ants was barb

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

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

> > You really refuse to accept anything but perfect regularity, don't you? I don't see why ja- > yacer, but > je- > echar, enero; but I accept that It happened.
>

> The soundlaws admit no exceptions.

That isn't science, it's a mania. It's not based on evidence, only the desire or preference that the laws of society be as firm as those of nature. It has been seen many times after the rise of the scientific method, but no linguist should fall for that now or for the last 100 years.

>

Apparent exceptions require explanations. Either the soundlaws are more complicated than previously thought, or some mechanism has interfered with regular development such as dialect-mixing, back-formation, analogical restoration, folk-etymology, tabuistic substitution, whatever.

> > >

How is it more scientific, likely, or whatever, that words with doublets like:

tHars^amim \ tHaRamim = wither Ar;

are from some unknown Armenian dialect, rather than an opt. change, one of many needed to explain other Ar. alt., like:

xe:rá: = dry land, xerón = dry land G;
c^Hor = dry, c^Hir = dried fruit Ar;

> > as well as borrowing a large number of learned words from Greek and Latin with initial atonic (h)i- before a single consonant. Regarding the second, I do not see why the same thing would fail to happen with other initial vowels, e.g. "um aval" > *"um anval", "um evento" > *"um envento", "um ouvido" > *"um o(u)mvido".
> > >
> > It's likely *verno and *ivErno were made more distinct, possibly seen as antonyms w 0- vs in-, after -b- > -B-, or whatever the stage was after w- > v-, etc.
>
> Finally, progress! After all these years, you are looking for a MECHANISM instead of reflexively invoking an optional soundlaw!
>

I have never said anything against the existence of analogy.