[PG]
This exchange has run aground because of
Patrick's stubborn refusal to address any sort of criticism by presenting and
discussing counterevidence.
[PCR]
I have addressed and will continue to
address any criticism for which evidence is presented.
[PG]
As anyone can see, his eristic strategy
is to stipulate something in an arbitrary fashion (that is, without bothering
to provide solid substantiation for his claim) and then to repeat the original
assertion ad nauseam whatever the opponents says, punctuating the repetitions
with slights and such pearls of rhetoric as "ridiculous" or "utter
nonsense".
[PCR]
We have the pot calling the kettle
black.
You obviously believe that whatever you
write has some evidentiary value even when it expresses what can only be an
unprovable opinion.
And as your charming "ad nauseam" in the
previous comment shows, you are quite capable of slinging slights yourself.
You have already expressed your basic contempt for the Nostratic idea already
in postings on this list; and it shows in every supercilious remark you
make.
[PG]
Example 1:
[The question was: what IE forms require
*g^en- but rule out *g^enh1-?]
Pat:
Old Indian jánati for one. Need more?
Greek geneté:, 'birth'.
Me: Neither of these rules out *g^enh1-e-.
Pat: Wrong. Both do.
Now, what on earth can I say to
that?
[PCR]
Yes, that leaves you at a loss, does it
not? Perhaps that is because you have forgotten the real
question.
Well, let me recapitulate the
discussion.
I posited an IE root *g^en-, meaning
basically 'successfully inseminate', i.e. 'engender (male action)'.
You replied that *g^enH- was the correct
reconstruction before you started quibbling over what the ultimate meaning of
*g^en(H)- was.
I responded that *g^enH- was a derivation
of *g^en-, and was not required as a basis for attested forms.
For argument, I mentioned that IE
roots are canonically CVC- (Kurylowicz would turn in his grave to think that
*g^enH- was being put forward by you as an IE root) with only a few exceptions
for *shorter* function words, and that *g^enH- must be interpreted as CVC+H-.
Accordingly, it cannot be the root --- even if all attested forms pointed
unequivocally to *g^enH- as their basis.
Now, a question to Piotr: do you believe
that some IE roots have the form CVCC? Do you dispute the idea that all (with
the exception noted above) IE roots have the form CVC?
At that point, Piotr cleverly shifted the
question to "what IE forms require *g^en- but rule out *g^enh1-", and, I
confess, I misread its meaning.
I thought his question was simply a
sloppy reformulation of the issue before us.
But, if Piotr wants to rule out *g^en- as
the root, and insist on ^g*enH-, contrary to standard IE theory, the question
is rather "does any attested form permit a reconstruction of *g^en- and not
require *g^enH-?"
Since I thought Piotr was capable of
continued focus on the question, this was how I, evidently in error,
interpreted his question.
I offered Old Indian jánati. This word
does *not* require *g^enH- as its basis; it can be derived very nicely from
*g^en-; and therefore proves my contention that howevermany words might be
derived from *g^enH-, there is every reason to believe that some were derived
from *g^en-, which validates the general CVC-rule for IE roots/
The original question was not "what IE
forms require *g^en- but rule out *g^enh1-" but rather "what forms in
languages derived from IE permit *g^en- as a basis and *do not
require* *g^enH-"?
Thus, I have proved the point I was making, namely, that there is a
root in IE of the form *g^en-.
[PG]
Example 2:
[I pointed out that Patrick
had misinterpreted the semantic derivation of Czech zrák; I also explained the
origin of related Slavic forms and their meaning. It wasn't _all_ the evidence
available to me, but I did remark there were further Baltic and Germanic
cognates that did not support Patrick's interpretation. Had the argument
developed in a civilised manner, I would have had a chance to play the rest of
my hand, but...]
Pat: And why should I take your word when I have my
own?
Me: Well, at least I've offered some concrete
evidence, not just my humble opinion or speculative guesses.
Pat: Sorry. You have offered nothing in the way of
evidence --- just an opinion.
[PCR]
Piotr misrepresents what he did.
He mentioned a number of Slavic forms that may or may not be related to
zrak, having to do with 'shine'.
In Pokorny, these words are
derived from 3. *g^her-. Pokorny also has 2. *g^her-, 'scratch, scrape', just
before it. Obviously, zrak could just as easily be derived from 2. as from 3.
*g^her-, which, in effect, is what I am suggesting.
Piotr asserts what he should
attempt to prove when he says: "I also explained the origin of related Slavic forms and their meaning."
What Piotr did was to cite some words that *may* be related but are not
necessarily related.His explanation is just speculation!
Now I do not claim to know much
about Slavic linguistics. But I have a Russian dictionary that lists Russian
zarosl6, 'underbrush, thicket', that looks to me as if it might be a
reflex of 2. *g^her-. But I will not insist on it. I simply do not
know.
[PG]
The semantic nuances of
"begetting" and the question whether one can ejaculate sperm without causing
impregnation I will leave at that. In the intellectual domain, it is only too
clear that some minds emit thoughts that have no fertilising
effect.
[PCR]
The emissions from your mind are, to be
way of thinking, very fertilizing.
But again, Piotr sidesteps (or
misunderstands) the question.
He asserted that his **g^enH- did NOT
mean 'beget': "[*g^enh1-] does _not_ refer to
fornication, insemination, etc., and if you think it does, please show
your evidence rather than declare me dead wrong ex cathedra, as it
were."
I cited an example, Greek
gennáo:, 'I beget (said of a father)'. Regardless of what Piotr's Polish dictionary may say, my dictionary
"Liddell-Hart", says "BEGET".
Piotr claims that this root is a
denominal verb: "Actually, it is a denominal verb, from <genna:> 'birth,
origin', hence its rather general meaning."
If Piotr thinks *g^enna:- is a PIE form,
I beg to differ.
I answered: "It is a
verb, *g^en-, (CVC, you know), to which extensions like -*H have been added,
which, in this case, represents Nostratic -*?, forming a
stative."
Evidently, Piotr does not believe in
CVC-roots!
I stand by what I have written, and I
will assume, out of kindness, that Piotr's twisting of the questions is
sleight-of-hand rather than simple confusion.
Piotr, of course, sidesteps any question
on which he has been shown to be wrong.
He asserted that Sumerian tu(d) meant
'beget'. I told him that it probably meant simply 'bear' (female aspect of the
process), and cited reasons to believe that.
He returned by impugning my ability to
interpret the Sumerian data; and I assert for the record that Piotr has no
idea what training I have had in Sumerology. He just wanted to denigrate my
interpretation.
I showed him that Thomsen, an authority
whom HE cites, seems to agree by defining tud in her grammar as "Thomsen
defines tud as 'to bear, to fashion' on pg. 320 of her grammar. Sorry for you
but no 'to beget'."
Piotr passes that by in silence because,
I believe, he has only heard the name Thomsen, and never read her book. If he
has, he is very forgetful.
Anyone who questions whether words
derived from a verb 'plait' can serve as a basis for words meaning 'basket'
really should be doing something other than comparative work.
And yet, Piotr questioned whether OHG
kratto, 'basket', could be derived from IE *ger-, 'plait'. He asks for
evidence from other branches: I gave him Old Indian gárta-H, 'wagon-seat',
which we know were made of withe. He ignores it.
I doubt that Northern Europe needed to
borrow a word for wickerwork from the invading Romans since burning people in
baskets was one of their favorite pastimes.
Latin cra:tis, 'wickerwork', comes from
another IE root, *ker-t-. One has nothing to do with the other. Since we have
OHG hurd-, why would they have needed to borrow anyhthing.
Piotr also asserts that the sequence
s-k-r is iconic.
If words beginning with skr- in a number
of languages have to do with 'scratching, scoring' etc. it is becuase they are
s-mobile forms of roots with, without the s-, meant 'scratching, scoring',
etc.
So, that is
Piotr's argument. Evidently, poor mortals looking at Pokorny, simply cannot
get the right idea. It takes special training.
So, let me ask since I can defer to the magister:
what formal training in IE linguistics have you had, Piotr?
Pat