Re: Why do Pokorny's roots for water have an "a" in front?

2012/12/11, Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>:

> [Top-posting corrected.]
>
> At 8:21:00 PM on Monday, December 10, 2012,
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
>> 2012/12/11, Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>:
>
>>> At 7:55:12 PM on Monday, December 10, 2012,
>>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
>>>> It's apparent that reconstructable phonology has had an
>>>> impressive rising of its rate of change in the latest
>>>> millennia (at least up to the Middle Ages included).
>
>>> It is?
>
> That's a serious question; I'd like an answer.

*Bhr.: I meant that phonological changes from Proto-West-Germanic to
Middle English, from Proto-(Balto-)Slavic (the stage of the Prehistory
of Slavic at about the first centuries AD) to Mediaeval Polish, from
Latin to Old French and so on (all taking place inside the time
extension from 1 to 1500 AD) are more numerous and complex than the
ones from Late Western Indo-European to Proto-West-Germanic, from
North-Central Indo-European to Proto-(Balto-)Slavic and from
Proto-Italic (or its variety in Latium) to Latin (all presumably
between 2000 and 1 BCE), which in turn are much more numerous than
from Proto-Indo-European to Late Western Indo-European, North-Central
Indo-European, and Proto-Italic

>

(...)

>
>> Then be satisfied with invented substrates and the Far
>> West Model of PIE. It seems that You all consider
>> Glottochronology a better attested fact than plain
>> etymological method.
>
> Quatsch. I'm extremely skeptical of glottochronology.
>

*Bhr.: OK, very sorry, I tak note of that. I beg Your pardon

>> What's incredible to me is that You all practically hate
>> PIE: it has above all to be restricted, limited,
>> short-lived, with the smallest amount of words and
>> phonemes,
>
> Piffle. I simply accept the uniformity principles as sound
> heuristics, so sound that proposed violations must be very
> well supported. Failure to do so leaves one open to
> excesses every bit as silly as Sean's opt. snd. 'laws',
> albeit of a very different sort.

*Bhr.: please read my reply to DGK for a tentative demonstration that
there's no contrast on that

>
>> while invented substrates flourish undemonstrated... You
>> all really prefer invented languages to reconstructed PIE
>
> I don't believe that I've said much one way or another about
> substrates since your appearance here, apart from objecting
> to Tavi's parody of historical linguistics; in the past I've
> been highly critical of Torsten's predilection for positing
> substrates on the basis of uncritical Worthäufungen. On
> this subject I'm inclined to agree with Roger Lass:
>
> This decision [viz., not to reconstruct an IE root that
> would have to have been lost everywhere save in one
> subfamily or small areal grouping, and not to admit
> large-scale word creation ex nihilo in established
> languages] leads to a lot of imaginary languages being
> sucked out of linguists' thumbs; but it can also
> occasionally lead to discoveries of considerable and
> wide-ranging historical importance.
>
> In fact, I'm really not sure to whom 'You all' could refer.
> DGK does IE linguistics. Sean is on record as believing
> that 'All known languages not currently classified as IE are
> actually from one branch of IE: Indo-Iranian'.
>
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62318>.
>
> Shivraj is an ideologue with no real interest in the
> subject. Jörg has merely observed that there must have been
> substrates in at least some parts of the area eventually
> covered by IE speakers; acknowledging their almost certain
> existence is a far cry from making specific claims about
> them. João mostly asks questions, and I can't recall any
> instances of Rick beating the drum for substrates. Does
> 'You all' really refer to anyone besides Tavi?
>
> Brian
>
>

*Bhr.: by "You all" I mean everyone who without reasonable doubts
adds to etymological discussions generalizing restrictions from
General Linguistics that, up to now, are still under debate. To
maintain that every single phonological feature must change every say
two millennia is of course a possibility, but by no means an
ascertained law - and this is the only point I reject...
If You want names, S. Kalyanaraman isn't interested in
Indo-European; Tavi is interested, but doesn't accept Indo-European
linguistic procedures and offers too loose alternatives (for our
methodological requirements) to them; Stlatos does use perfect
Indo-European rules, but adds to them personal (albeit always acute)
formulations in a frame of optionality which makes everything too
vague; Torsten postulates substrates that can be interesting, but is
unjustifiably too critique toward any at leaast equally possible more
'traditional' explanation; DGK is one the greatest Linguists I've ever
known, but his systematic option for loans from three of four
substrates which are less sure than universally recognized IE classes
lets him make the same incoherence as Torsten's: extremely tough about
traditional explanations, while much more indulgent with his own
proposals...