|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,706
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,706 |
Anyway, your historical linguistics rebooted certainly is more fun once you've gotten rid of all those stodgy "laws". Yes, it is. Isn’t it? After all, things are usually a lot more fun when you can make some sense out of them. And its fun debating the points too...or in my case reading this thread, cause I am yet to be persuaded one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 132
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 132 |
And its fun debating the points too...or in my case reading this thread, cause I am yet to be persuaded one way or the other.
is a good place to start... Calvert Watkins' introduction to the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Here we go. So, since what I’ve written evidently differs with everything you and many other people have believed for so long, I suppose you’re next attempt to refute it will contain words like “crank,” “fringe,” “fanciful,” ”“folk etymologies,”“unscientific” (Tee-hee!). Go ahead! Fire away! But it’s not going to change the evidence or arguments in the case one iota!
I debated whether I should break my silence or not, but in the end I decided to counteract some of the notions you were tossing around. Let's call your notions a new comparative-historical linguistics. The old school, the one that is so wrong for such a long time, based their comparison of the forms of words, bolstered by semantic relations. What Bopp and Grimm and their colleagues noticed is that sound change is regular. Your anything goes theory (as goofy has suggested) just about allows for anything. Yours is actually the older working hypothesis, stretching back through Isidore of Seville to Varro.
The 19th and 20th century version of comparative-historical linguistics also allows for words like pedal having something to do with foot to appear in English. It was borrowed rather than inherited. Once consonants count for very little and vowels for less, you can relate all kinds of words together with, between, and amongst languages. After posting the other day, I realised that through your system, pet is obviously related to foot, pes, pedis, et al.: the prototypical pet is a dog, dogs refer to feet, as in "Boy, howdy are my dogs tired."
I have had this same argument with more than one person on the Web.The most-interesting "theory" was that there was some sort of primitive phonemic inventory, and that one could determine etymologies, not by relating forms with meanings, historically and comparatively, but more like legos. If it's got an r in it, it has to do with flowing water: e.g., river, creek, pore, etc. Almost all his examples came from English.
I have noticed that once folks have come up with their theories, they tend to go someplace where they can present their findings. Words or language lists, archaeology or history, etc. And then they get all twisted out of shape when folks point out what's wrong with their theory. It devolves into a shouting match; nobody is convinced one way or another, etc. I am not saying that your theory is wrong, but I do reserve the right to say it does not interest me because I do not see its use in the same way that I do with physics or arithmetic or good old-fashioned comparative-historical linguistics.
Take care on your journey. You may be the first person I have to put on my ignore list.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 7
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 7 |
But this hypothesis is not falsifiable in your theory, because your theory doesn't account for regular sound change. This is a logical fallacy called begging the question; that is, assuming that the question — “Are the sound changes that historical linguists consider inviolable laws regular?” — has already been answered affirmatively. And It most certainly hasn’t — at least in any way that a logician, empirical scientist or philosopher of science should consider logical or scientific. To the contrary, the answer to the question is evidently “No,” even though you’re having trouble accepting that answer. With respect to the Popperian notion of falsifiability, you can certainly disprove my theory if, for instance, you can prove that the following literal formulae don’t really equal one: L p_d/foot = Gk p_d/foot = Gc p_d/foot = 1 On the other hand, I’ve just disproved the supposed laws specifying that Gc * p and * d never correspond to Gk and L * p and * d. But, according to historical linguists, this isn’t a falsification; it’s nothing but a coincidence, since the law is inviolable. This is exactly the kind of fallacious reasoning that Vonnegurt had in mind when he coined the term“Catch-22." So you can hypothesize that any number of words are related by making up semantic connections. Except that I’m not “making up semantic connections.” The assertion that people have graphically and linguistically personified plants and their parts is so intuitively obvious and incredibly well-documented that it’s an axiom, insofar as it’s a self-evident and a universally recognized truth. The etymologies I’ve presented just exemplify that truth. All you've done is presented a list of words from different languages that are similar in sound You mean, as opposed to what linguists did? Firstly, let’s get our terms straight. The issue is the inviolability of consonant changes, not sound changes, since (1) vocalization — hence sound — changes with vowelization, (2) historical linguists have accepted the existence of differential vowelization when they framed their laws and roots, and (2) the Gc words I’ve been comparing are consonantally and semantically identical to L. and Gk words, in opposition to those alleged laws. The Gc words are therefore obvious counterexamples, even though these linguists somehow managed to pawn the counterexamples off as coincidences in an effort to frame and support their purported laws. [words] can be made to seem similar in meaning, So, what are you saying now? That I made words like L. pedetemptim ‘step by step’, and pedestrian ‘walker’ seem semantically similar to Gc words for walking like pedden, padden and a multitude of other words for the feet and using them. I could do the same for any two languages you care to mention. And since in your theory there is no such thing as regular sound change, you don't have to explain any of the sound correspondences. You just keep begging the question, evidently because your teachers believed and led you and their other students to believe that neither L nor Gk *p or *d can correspond to Gc. *p or *d because of supposed laws. So these students simply accepted what their teachers told them for a number of reasons I need not go into. Why not say that root is related to Greek pous and Latin pes as well? After all, you can easily see how a tree could be personified with the roots as the feet. Now you’re starting to think the way you should have been thinking all along, since the same root [ p+V+ d that yielded Gk. L, and Gc words for feet and pods came into Sanskrit as pada ‘foot, tree root.’ So, now, since Gk, L and Skt * p and * d inviolably correspond to each other but never to Gc * p and d, historical linguists also had to orphan Skt pada from its Gc cognates to frame these supposed laws. Consequently, frame is a perfect word for what they did. BTW, I’m not denying that Gk, L. and Skt p and d can correspond to Gc f and t, respectively, since they evidently can and do. However, since Gk, L. and Skt p and d can also correspond to Gk, L. and Skt * f and * t, the supposed laws specifying that they can never correspond to Gc * f and * t are also invalid. But I’m not about to present that case here, if you can’t even accept the relatively obvious formula L p_d/foot = Gk p_d/foot = Gc p_d/foot = 1, and its intuitively obvious corollaries.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 7
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 7 |
[i]Take care on your journey. You may be the first person I have to put on my ignore list. Thanks very much. It saves me the time and trouble of having to respond to objections that are as vacuous as this one and the last one your posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,916 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,916 Likes: 2 |
I wonder what the ancient Greeks sitting in the Agora in
Athens would have done had they had an "Ignore" button.
Don't worry Steve, I am on Ignore and it is a delightful
experience.
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 132
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 132 |
But this hypothesis is not falsifiable in your theory, because your theory doesn't account for regular sound change. This is a logical fallacy called begging the question; that is, assuming that the question — “Are the sound changes that historical linguists consider inviolable laws regular?” — has already been answered affirmatively. And It most certainly hasn’t — at least in any way that a logician, empirical scientist or philosopher of science should consider logical or scientific. To the contrary, the answer to the question is evidently “No,” even though you’re having trouble accepting that answer. I think we know that sound change is at least partly regular, because we have a mass of evidence showing regular sound correspondences. The reason we assume that sound change is invariably regular is because it lets us make predictions and falsifiable hypotheses. In other words, it's a useful assumption. If we assume that sound change isn't invariably regular, then we can't predict how the forms of words will differ across languages, and every hypothesis we make is as valid as any other. I have no interest in that sort of theory, it's not useful or interesting.
On the other hand, I’ve just disproved the supposed laws specifying that Gc *p and *d never correspond to Gk and L *p and *d.
No, you've simply asserted that some words are related, without offering an explanation of the various historical processes that led to the different forms. Why do some of the Germanic words begin with p and some with f.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,706
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,706 |
This is a good place to start... Calvert Watkins' introduction to the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. Thanks for that goofy....I was getting lost in this conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 7
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 7 |
I think we know that sound change is at least partly regular, because we have a mass of evidence showing regular sound correspondences. The reason we assume that sound change is invariably regular is because it lets us make predictions and falsifiable hypotheses. Utter nonsense! You’re using the correct word when you call it an “hypothesis” or “assumption”— rather than the “inviolable law” linguists have been pawning it off as. But you obviously don’t know or want to know what falsifiability is because I just falsified the hypothesis that Gk, L, and Skt *p and *d can't possible correspond to Gc *p and *d. So maybe you can tell me how I can falsify that hypothesis any better ? I’d really like to hear that one. In other words, it's a useful assumption. Sure. So was the assumption that the Sun revolved around the earth in that it allowed Ptolemaic astronomers to develop a system of concentric circles that predicted some things about planetary motion. The problem was that the predictions didn’t match the observations, just as the prediction that Gk, L, and Skt *p and *d invariably correspond to Gc *f and *t don’t match the observations. In both cases the hypotheses were wrong. So Ptolemaic astronomers egregiously violated Occham’s Razor — I’m assuming you know what that is — by adding more and more hypotheses to their system in an effort to make the system fit the observations, or just ignoring the discrepancies. By the same token, linguists kept hypothesizing the existence of unattested words and PIE roots to make the evidence fit their theories, or they just ignored the discrepancies, like the ones I just showed you and hundreds of others. Then, when Copernicus theorized that the earth revolved around the sun, and Galileo proved it telescopically by observing Venus’s phases, these astronomers just ignored them, too. And the Catholic Church, whose belief system hinged on geocentrism to an extraordinary extent, maintained a geocentric position for centuries after that pudding was proven. It is for the very same reasons that historical linguistics is, at worst, a pseudo-science, and at best, a proto-science. But if the history of science repeats itself, as it surely will, it could be some time before linguists are ready to accept the fact that their allegedly precise science is nothing but a house of cards. If we assume that sound change isn't invariably regular, then we can't predict how the forms of words will differ across languages, and every hypothesis we make is as valid as any other. I have no interest in that sort of theory, it's not useful or interesting. You've simply asserted that some words are related, without offering an explanation of the various historical processes that led to the different forms. Why do some of the Germanic words begin with p and some with f. I’m sorry. But my patience is at an end!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I’m sorry. But my patience is at an end!
Does that mean you're going to go away?
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
|
