Latin descended through creolization
anal...@hotmail.com
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t6736-165.htm
start quote:
Stephane Goyette engages in what might be called 'applied
creolistics', taking insights from what is known about creoles and
creolization in general and applying them in a novel arena to material
not previously considered relevant to creolistics. His focus is on an
interesting and challenging question: why was there so much movement
towards analytic structuring in the development of Latin into the
Romance languages, and especially so much more than in the development
of Greek over a comparable period of time?
Goyette's provocative answer is that creolization, with its propensity
to lead 'to a radically heightened degree of analyticity' (p. 126)
played a role in the development of Latin (but not Greek).
Here some extracts:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ABSTRACT
This thesis aims to ascertain whether or not the phenomenon known as
creolization played a role in the emergence of the Romance language
from Latin. Creolization and normal language change differ in terms of
their respective effects upon inflectional morphology: normal language
change yields morphological loss and morphological creation through
grammaticization. Creolization cause inflectional morphology to be
severely
reduced. Thus, the hypothesis tested would predict that the transition
from Latin to Romance would involve an unusuly high degree of
morphological loss and an absence of creation of new
inflectional morphology. Cornparison with another language, whose
extemal history precludes Ïts having been creolized, Greek, is used to
ascertain whether Romance shows an musual pattem of morphological
loss . .
Comparison is first made between the fate of Latin nominal declension
in Romance and Classical Greek declension in Modem Greek. It is found
that declension was almost wholly eliminated in Romance but is
preserved largely unscathed in Modem Greek. A similar fate befell
adjectival declension. Likewise, the synthetic comparatives and
superlatives of Latin did not survive into Romance, but those of
Classical Greek survived into Modem Greek. Comparison of the two verb
systems yields a similar result : whereas Romance severely reduced
Latin verbal morphology (most importantly, the passive), Modern Greek
has presaved the greater
part of Classical Greek verbal mophology unscathed. If one adds to
this a complete absence of any morphological creation in the emerging
Romance languages, one is forced to conclude that creolization must
indeed have played a role in the history of Romance.
In conclusion, some examination is made of other alleged instances of
creole-influenced language change, all of which are found wanting:
some suggestions are made regarding methodology. Likewise, the
implications of this conclusion, to linguists and especially Romance
linguïsts, are presented
..........
7.7 Concluding remarks
This thesis sought to establish whether there is any linguistic basis
supporting the contention that creolization played a significant role
in the emergence of Romance from Latin, a possibility which cannot be
lightly dismissed in light of the extemal history of Latin.
Basing itself on the premise that creolization differs from normal
language change in leading to a radically heightened degree of
analyticity, use was made of Greek as a comparandum indicating
'normal', gradual linguistic change, in order to ascertain whether in
fact the evolution from Latin to Romance is more creole-like than that
of Greek. ....
It was found that, in nominal as well as in a major subset of verbal
morphology, Latin had evolved in the direction of much more radical
analyticity than Greek, and moreover had not, during the relevant
period, created any new synthetic structures; this in
contradistinction to what is expected in the case of 'normal', gradual
linguistic evolution.
On this basis, postulating creolization as a contrïbuting factor in
the evolution of LatinRomance becomes a matter of explanation rather
than speculation, and indeed would appear to be the sirnplest (and
therefore, on the basis of Occam's razor, should be the one accepted),
as othenwise we are left with having to explain the greater analytic
aspect of Romance when compared to Greek in the nominal as well as in
the verbal system.
If one accepts the validity of the data presented here, then one must
point out that a refutation of this theory presented here, to be taken
seriously, would need to present an alternative explanation as to why,
in contradistinction both to its Romance daughters and Indo-European
sisters, Late LatinlEarly Romance underwent such a radical,
unidirectional
shift in the direction of analyticity; this in its nominal as well as
verbal systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps this can convince even the most sceptical spirits that a
process of Creolization must have happened and, if they are still
incredulous, motivate them to present an alternative explanation as to
why Late Latin / Early Romance underwent such a radical,
unidirectional shift in the direction of analyticity.
To my opinion, the most probable reason for the Creolization of Latin
is the historic fact that barbaric populations massively invaded
Western Europe. The invasions were followed by hundredth of years of
Germanic dominance and settlement in what is today France, Italy and
Spain. What other language contact (= driving force of Creolization)
could have led to such a radical change of Latin towards Roman
languages?
End quote.
It is probably not true even with a single word in all of the world's
languages that it was spoken in one way by some speakers who then
split up and slowly started saying the same word differently.
This fallacy will eventually be shown to be similar to those diagrams
(you don't see them anymore) supposed to illustrate how evolution
works - that used to show a deer stretching its neck and becoming a
giraffe eventually.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
You've presented quotes from three different sources:
1) a review by Brian D.Joseph of a book in which a paper of Goyette's
appeared (first two paragraphs)
2) something by Goyette -- but what? It's not from the paper in
question
3) comments by someone named "Ouest" to antimoon.com, who pasted the
above together (last two paragraphs).
Your slack attitude to quotation makes it very difficult to sort out
who says what.
But that aside, what is the point here? You do have one, don't you?
Goyette suggests, with suitable caution, that creolization may have
played some role in the development of the Romance languages from
Latin. "Ouest" obviously likes this idea. Joseph, in the review, does
not.
You, as always firmly based in maximal ignorance, are ready to ignore
this caution and these differences of opinion, and treat the thesis as
proven.
But what follows? Does it follow that the Romance languages did not
develop, with regular sound changes, from Latin? Of course not. These
inconvenient facts will not go away even if you paste a label
"creolization" on them.
But hey, you're way ahead of me already. Finished with Latin, next
stop the world!
> It is probably not true even with a single word in all of the world's
> languages that it was spoken in one way by some speakers who then
> split up and slowly started saying the same word differently.
If your basis of evidence for thinking that you had disposed of Latin-
to-Romance was slim, here it is invisible. I'm sorry but I have to
keep reminding you: You know nothing. It follows that the bigger your
claims, the more foolish you look.
> This fallacy will eventually be shown to be similar to those diagrams
> (you don't see them anymore) supposed to illustrate how evolution
> works - that used to show a deer stretching its neck and becoming a
> giraffe eventually.
I'll take this as your closing prayer. You devoutly wish...
Ross Clark
Harlan Messinger
> ascertain whether Romance shows an musual pattem of morphological
> loss . .
> Comparison is first made between the fate of Latin nominal declension
> in Romance and Classical Greek declension in Modem Greek. It is found
> that declension was almost wholly eliminated in Romance but is
> preserved largely unscathed in Modem Greek. A similar fate befell
> adjectival declension. Likewise, the synthetic comparatives and
> superlatives of Latin did not survive into Romance, but those of
> Classical Greek survived into Modem Greek. Comparison of the two verb
> systems yields a similar result : whereas Romance severely reduced
> Latin verbal morphology (most importantly, the passive), Modern Greek
> has presaved the greater
> part of Classical Greek verbal mophology unscathed. If one adds to
> this a complete absence of any morphological creation in the emerging
> Romance languages, one is forced to conclude that creolization must
> indeed have played a role in the history of Romance.
Look at this logic:
1. Latin and Greek differ in one respect (the lingustic ones described
above);
2. Latin and Greek differ in another respect (the presence of other
languages in the environment; therefore
3. (2) is responsible for (1).
Never mind that there may be a hundred other aspects in which the course
of the two languages has differed, never mind that any given influence
doesn't have a fixed impact in all cases where it is found: this person
has decided to mention just these two differences and, therefore, ipso
facto, one is the cause of the other, and one *must* be force to so
conclude. Oh, and never mind that there is no evidence of this so-called
creolization.
If reasoning like that suits you, well, fine, go through life being
easily misled.
Harlan Messinger
> Look at this logic:
>
> 1. Latin and Greek differ in one respect (the lingustic ones described
> above);
>
> 2. Latin and Greek differ in another respect (the presence of other
> languages in the environment; therefore
>
> 3. (2) is responsible for (1).
>
> Never mind that there may be a hundred other aspects in which the course
> of the two languages has differed, never mind that any given influence
> doesn't have a fixed impact in all cases where it is found: this person
> has decided to mention just these two differences and, therefore, ipso
> facto, one is the cause of the other, and one *must* be force to so
> conclude. Oh, and never mind that there is no evidence of this so-called
> creolization.
Oh, and never mind that Goyette only bothered two look at a language
sample of size 2. That's like testing a drug on only two people with one
as the experimental "group" and one as the control "group", and then if
the first one lives while the second one dies, proclaiming that one
*must* conclude that the drug is wholly responsible for the difference.
>
> If reasoning like that suits you, well, fine, go through life being
> easily misled.
Repeat the last sentence until it sinks in.
anal...@hotmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have no doubt whatsoever that this PIE myth is being carried forward
from inertia. if at all there is a PIE it is 80 percent Sanskrit, 15
percent Greek and perhaps 5 percent Latin. Contact Contact Contact -
thats the only reason there are correspondences across languages.
All sound changes are reductive - either by the borrowing language
during contact, or within a language when the linguistic elite lose
power and allow the language-coarsening tendecies of the uncultivated
take over.
Sanskrit and perhaps Greek experienced language ascent internally for
reasons we don't understand and internally acquired words and grammar
that would sweep all in front of them on contact.
The single-parent tree diagram is an intellectual embarassment - I am
amazed that grown men, PhDs etc. trot this kind of infantile material
out without any shame.
I am putting these teaser bits of evidence out there because I don't
have the time to put it all together - but it is crystal clear how PIE
can and will be destroyed.
(Hint: compare words like Dirgha and Dolicho - which is the direction
of reductivity ? Now do this for a couple of hundred cognate words -
and that would be all she wrote).
Peter T. Daniels
> It is probably not true even with a single word in all of the world's
> languages that it was spoken in one way by some speakers who then
> split up and slowly started saying the same word differently.
And no one has suggested that that's what happens.
What happens is that _successive generations_ have slightly different
languages from their parents and deeper ancestors, and as
_communities_ grow apart, these differences cumulate in different ways
in the different communities.
When a community do not split up, changes ripple through it in
different directions with different sources, and usually end up
affecting the entire speech-community, or else result in noticeable
dialect differences within the community.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Well, I guess I would be a fool to ask you how you propose to turn
this into a serious argument for (or against) anything. Or even ask
you the answer to the above question.
It's "crystal clear" to you, so anybody who doesn't get it must
be...oh, you know....infantile.
And anyhow, you "don't have the time to put it all together". A very
comfortable stance from which to erect theoretical claims built on
solid bullshit.
Ross Clark
Harlan Messinger
Yes, we've all known for quite some time now what you don't doubt,
because it pleases you not to doubt it. Are you bringing this up now by
way of saying, yes, it does suit you to go through life being easily
misled? Otherwise I don't see the relevance.
> I am putting these teaser bits of evidence out there because I don't
> have the time to put it all together - but it is crystal clear how PIE
> can and will be destroyed.
As I already explained, the passage you quoted is not evidence. No field
of study will be destroyed by a committed ignoramus copying and pasting
arbitrary bits of deeply flawed reasoning to Usenet newsgroups.
Nathan Sanders
<15fea041-2d21-4d54...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> All sound changes are reductive -
Nonsense. Epenthesis and fortition are but two examples of
non-reductive sound changes.
Nathan
anal...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <15fea041-2d21-4d54-98b1-42f4cd673...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > All sound changes are reductive -
>
> Nonsense. Epenthesis and fortition are but two examples of
> non-reductive sound changes.
>
> Nathan
so ellum for elm is not reductive?
is mele kalikimaka is an example of fortition?
how about laiki fo rice and palaki for brush in Hawaiian?
If you look at IE cognate word lists, the strongest form would be 80
pct in sanskrit, 15 pct in greek and 5 pct in Latin (an example of
Sanskrit not being the strongest form would be Latin "aster" versus
Sanskrit "tara" for 'star"- although there is "nakshatra" to
consider).
Romance and germanic languages originated as pidgins/creoles - they
are not of equal status with Sanskrit - deal with it.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Dec 21, 9:23 am, Nathan Sanders <nathansand...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <15fea041-2d21-4d54-98b1-42f4cd673...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > All sound changes are reductive -
>
> > Nonsense. Epenthesis and fortition are but two examples of
> > non-reductive sound changes.
>
> > Nathan
>
> so ellum for elm is not reductive?
How is going from 3 phonemes to 4 phonemes "reductive"?
> is mele kalikimaka is an example of fortition?
Do you know what "fortition" means?
> how about laiki fo rice and palaki for brush in Hawaiian?
>
> If you look at IE cognate word lists, the strongest form would be 80
> pct in sanskrit, 15 pct in greek and 5 pct in Latin (an example of
> Sanskrit not being the strongest form would be Latin "aster" versus
> Sanskrit "tara" for 'star"- although there is "nakshatra" to
> consider).
>
> Romance and germanic languages originated as pidgins/creoles - they
> are not of equal status with Sanskrit - deal with it.
And you base this pronouncement on your vast knowledge of Romance and
Germanic languages? Pardon us while we scoff.
Nathan Sanders
<9f6d851f-ac2c-4b97...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:23 am, Nathan Sanders <nathansand...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <15fea041-2d21-4d54-98b1-42f4cd673...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > All sound changes are reductive -
> >
> > Nonsense. Epenthesis and fortition are but two examples of
> > non-reductive sound changes.
>
> so ellum for elm is not reductive?
No, it's not. Do you know what "reductive" means?
> is mele kalikimaka is an example of fortition?
Borrowing is not sound change.
> If you look at IE cognate word lists, the strongest form would be 80
> pct in sanskrit, 15 pct in greek and 5 pct in Latin (an example of
> Sanskrit not being the strongest form would be Latin "aster" versus
> Sanskrit "tara" for 'star"- although there is "nakshatra" to
> consider).
Come back when you define "strongest form" in an objective, consistent
way.
> Romance and germanic languages originated as pidgins/creoles - they
Proof? (Why do I get the feeling you don't even know what pidgins and
creoles are?)
> are not of equal status with Sanskrit - deal with it.
I don't think anyone but you cares about "status".
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
anal...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <9f6d851f-ac2c-4b97-ac95-811d55d95...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 9:23 am, Nathan Sanders <nathansand...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <15fea041-2d21-4d54-98b1-42f4cd673...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > All sound changes are reductive -
>
> > > Nonsense. Epenthesis and fortition are but two examples of
> > > non-reductive sound changes.
>
> > so ellum for elm is not reductive?
>
> No, it's not. Do you know what "reductive" means?
>
> > is mele kalikimaka is an example of fortition?
>
> Borrowing is not sound change.
>
> > If you look at IE cognate word lists, the strongest form would be 80
> > pct in sanskrit, 15 pct in greek and 5 pct in Latin (an example of
> > Sanskrit not being the strongest form would be Latin "aster" versus
> > Sanskrit "tara" for 'star"- although there is "nakshatra" to
> > consider).
>
> Come back when you define "strongest form" in an objective, consistent
> way.
from
http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/plm/files/Abstracts/PLM2007_Abstract_Kul.pdf
Therefore, in the absence of any coherent definition of lenition and
fortition, the paper
proposes to define lenition as reduction and proposes its three types:
reduction of energy,
reduction of complexity and reduction of aerodynamic unnaturalness,
whereas fortition is an
effortful suppression of lenition.
end quote.
I would add that a strong form conveys gravitas, cultivation, quality
(in comparison to weak forms - say Vrika (Sanskirt) versus wolf ) and
have this irreversible property (strong forms can arise only during
internal language ascent in a single language and can only descend to
weak forms in when a language descends into many languages).
>
> > Romance and germanic languages originated as pidgins/creoles - they
>
> Proof? (Why do I get the feeling you don't even know what pidgins and
> creoles are?)
>
> > are not of equal status with Sanskrit - deal with it.
>
> I don't think anyone but you cares about "status".
You think wrong.
mb
...
> I would add that a strong form conveys gravitas, cultivation, quality
> (in comparison to weak forms - say Vrika (Sanskirt) versus wolf )
Evidence? Measurement?
Now you confirm that you are not just an emotionally blocked
nationalist idiot with an axe to grind; only a total madman can be
clueless enough to come with that kind of nonsense.
Nathan Sanders
<e744804b-2444-4f6b...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
That's a definition of "lenition", not "strongest form". Do you not
read the random sources you cite?
Or are you suggesting that lenition turns strong forms into weak
forms. In which case, what do epenthesis and fortition do?!
> I would add that a strong form conveys gravitas, cultivation, quality
How do you propose to measure whether something "conveys gravitas"?
anal...@hotmail.com
Duh.
In which case, what do epenthesis and fortition do?!
If you show me instances from language descent, or two cognates
standing in such a relationship to each other, we can talk about it.
My focus is only on correctly explaining why there are sound
corespondences between Sanskrit and some languages of Europe.
My contention is that Sanskrit sounds were strong forms at the time
contact began with Old Greek (Which had its own strong forms) and Old
Latin (with fewer strong forms) and the alleged cognates in all IE
languages are derived from lenition of the strong forms of Sanskirt,
Old Greek and Old Latin.
>
> > I would add that a strong form conveys gravitas, cultivation, quality
>
> How do you propose to measure whether something "conveys gravitas"?
Go hear Vedic chanting. The Muslim call to prayer and Gregorian
chants convey gravitas also - but the solemnity and sacredness of
sanskrit was known from much earlier and individual words and even
sounds of Sanskrit convey this quality.
Watch the movie "My fair lady" - Higgins was trying to teach Eliza to
speak with gravitas.
>
> Nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sanders
> Linguistics Program
> Williams Collegehttp://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/- Hide quoted text -
mb
...
> Go hear Vedic chanting. The Muslim call to prayer and Gregorian
> chants convey gravitas also - but the solemnity and sacredness of
> sanskrit was known from much earlier and individual words and even
> sounds of Sanskrit convey this quality.
Of course religious bullshit will impress religiously crazy idiots,
what's new there? "Sacredness", indeed. Nothing to do with language.
This site is for discussing language, take your private perversions
elsewhere.
anal...@hotmail.com
There are three phenomena described here here and we should separate
them out.
(1) The imperfect duplication over time of a single lanaguage in an
unchanging area - each succeding generation speaks a language thats
like a Xerox copy of the previous generation's - small changes
accumulate over time
(2) Time and space - a speech community splits into more than one due
to migration and each geographically separate sub-community does its
imperfect xerox-copying over time with only partial contact with the
others
(3) internal reduction and generation emanating from different strata
of the speech community
(I'll not bring up language contact since thats something traditional
hist/comp linguists see unable to deal with).
With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
devolution, how do you explain
(1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
(2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
miles of separate development between them ?
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
They've done a great deal of work on the Balkan sprachbund which is
all about language contact.
> With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
> devolution, how do you explain
>
> (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
If the content doesn't change, why would the language change? The
Lord's prayer in Latin has remained unchanged for 1700 years. When
Americans and Englishmen speak lines from Shakespeare, they use the
same language in the US and UK. When they sing hymns, they use the
same language for the same hymn; eg., Silent night.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Possibly some long-dead hist/comp linguists (the kind you seem to like
to deal with) were unable to deal with it. Actual hist/comp linguists
(the kind you go to considerable trouble to ignore) do not find any
such difficulty.
> With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
> devolution, how do you explain
>
> (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
Highly formalized recitation with error-correcting routines, helped
out by sophisticated grammatical/phonological anlysis and (eventually)
writing. Remarkable indeed, though totally unlike the development of
ordinary spoken languages.
> (2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
> their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
> miles of separate development between them ?-
What's to explain? Three centuries is not much on the scale of
linguistic change. And the two countries have always been in contact,
increasingly so in recent times.
You complain about "not having time" to develop your arguments that
will demolish comparative linguistics. Just contemplate the amount of
time you have spent scouring the internet for scraps of this and bits
of that which you don't understand, but which you are sure will put an
end to comp.ling. Apart from the incredible vanity of your thinking
this way, you could have put that time to use reading at least one
introductory textbook. Then you would at least ask more intelligent
questions.
Ross Clark
Nathan Sanders
<0ea11062-4234-444f...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 21, 4:30 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> > Or are you suggesting that lenition turns strong forms into weak
> > forms.
> >
> > In which case, what do epenthesis and fortition do?!
>
> If you show me instances from language descent,
How can you possibly have any serious interest in historical
linguistics and an IQ above 75, and still not be able to come up with
examples of epenthesis and fortition off the top of your head?!
Assuming you indeed have a serious interest in historical linguistics,
I'll help you out:
epenthesis: Latin stella, skola > Spanish estrella, eskuela
more epenthesis: Latin hominus, nominare > Spanish hombre, nombrar
(cf. French homme, nommer with no [b])
fortition: devoicing of voiced stops in Grimm's Law (English ten,
Danish ti; cf. Sanskrit dasan, Russian des'at, Greek deka, Latin dekem)
more fortition: occlusion of interdental fricatives [T] and [D] in
various dialects of English (AAVE, etc.)
even more fortition: hardening of [w] to [v] in numerous languages
(Romance, Slavic, etc.)
Some other types of non-reductive sound changes that I didn't mention
before include vowel lengthening and diphthongization. Do I need to
give you examples of these too?
And after all this, do you still think that "[a]ll sound changes are
reductive"?
> My contention is that Sanskrit sounds were strong forms at the time
> contact began with Old Greek (Which had its own strong forms) and Old
> Latin (with fewer strong forms) and the alleged cognates in all IE
> languages are derived from lenition of the strong forms of Sanskirt,
> Old Greek and Old Latin.
Then your contention is wrong. The [p t k] in Germanic languages due
to devoicing in Grimm's Law correspond to [b d g] in Sanskrit (and
other IE languages), and devoicing is most certainly a type of
fortition, not a type of lenition.
> > How do you propose to measure whether something "conveys gravitas"?
>
> Go hear Vedic chanting. The Muslim call to prayer and Gregorian
> chants convey gravitas also - but the solemnity and sacredness of
> sanskrit was known from much earlier and individual words and even
> sounds of Sanskrit convey this quality.
What a surprise: gravitas comes about when a religious person uses a
language in a solemn religious setting. How completely and utterly
boringly obvious.
> Watch the movie "My fair lady" - Higgins was trying to teach Eliza to
> speak with gravitas.
But she was still speaking English!
Which means gravitas is not, as I suspected, an inherent, measurable
property of a language itself, but rather only has something to do
with the manner in which it is used.
Can we get back to historical linguistics now and leave the
sociolinguistics aside?
Harlan Messinger
> (I'll not bring up language contact since thats something traditional
> hist/comp linguists see unable to deal with).
They deal with it a lot. This is just your misinterpretation of your
failure to convince anybody that it's the *only* force for language change.
>
> With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
> devolution, how do you explain
>
> (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
How do you know what they sounded like millennia ago?
> (2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
> their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
> miles of separate development between them ?
Are you under the impression that CBS and BBC newsreaders sound the same?
mb
....
> There are three phenomena described here here and we should separate
> them out.
>
> (1) The imperfect duplication over time of a single lanaguage in an
> unchanging area - each succeding generation speaks a language thats
> like a Xerox copy of the previous generation's - small changes
> accumulate over time
Which is it, a Xerox copy, term geenrally used for identical or almost
identical, or with "small" changes, which is the contrary of said
Xerox copy? Make up what you use for a mind.
...
> (3) internal reduction and generation emanating from different strata
> of the speech community
Didn't underrstant, afraid me no spik ingliss.
>
> (I'll not bring up language contact since thats something traditional
> hist/comp linguists see unable to deal with).
Which is the only thing you should discuss, but some deal with it
remarkably well (esp since mid to late 80es). Read Thomason & Kauffman
88 and their different models, at the very least, before you let out
that kind of nonsense on language contact. One also wonders how come
someone like you, whose ideology can only be satisfied by explaining
everything by language contact, could start at all without using that
source.
> With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
> devolution, how do you explain
You, not other people, are the religious an/or xenophobic and/or other
political idiot who sees "entropy" and "devolution" here [wow, that's
some ten-dollar words] . By the way, can we please stop comparing
language to physics or biology or any number of unrelated stuff?
> (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
You have zilch proof of that "remarkably faithful" belief (again
another religious belief) before writing. In fact, serious work on
epic traditions and rhapsodes, especially on African and Serbian
models, strongly suggests the utter impossibility of such a thing
instead of continuous, unconscious change.
> (2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
> their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
> miles of separate development between them ?
You've never heard about communications either, have you? Perhaps
another religious fixation. Or about the geographical differences in
dialects.
anal...@hotmail.com
Did you see the movie National Lampoon's European vacation in which
Chevy Chase talks to a cockney hotel desk clerk and tries to type in
what he hears into his multi-language translator and his son says,
"he's speaking english,dad"
Every language at a given time has
(1) Social strata that see value in the sounds and grammar of the
language handed down to them and try to preserve it. I would include
the religious elite in this stratum during historical periods when
they had the support of the secular rulers.
(2) Social strata that see value in preserving language but can only
imitate the upper classes
(3) Social strata that have linguistic needs indifferent to or opposed
to preservataion
(4) technical innovators - specialized tradespeople who might innovate
words for their specialized needs
(5) creative innovators (e.g. Shakespeare, Tagore) - they affect the
language creatively and can cause all kinds of changes - innovate new
words, phrases, introduce new usages in words and grammar, cause
established words and grammatical forms to go out of fashion, sanction
the acceptability of lower class words and grammar by their adoption
of it etc.
Hist/comp ling has to consider all this. I have noticed that none of
the regulars here has taken up my challenge to apply traditional comp
ling to the descent of American, Australian Canadian and South African
English from British.
You don't need any guesswork here at all - the words, sounds and
grammar in all cases are accessible to us even from our daily life,
not to speak of the vast literary and journalistic sources in all the
language-varieties.
My observations are
(1) consonant changes appear to be limited
(2) There are significant vowel changes - but the upper class
pronunciation and grammar across varieties seems to be much more
similar than those of the middle and lower classes.
(3) Dialectal variations within a variety appear to be of the same
order of magnitude as dialectal variations across varieties.
All this goes to show that tree diagrams are infantile - all kinds of
social factors govern language change.
>
>
> > (2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
> > their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
> > miles of separate development between them ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
anal...@hotmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > (I'll not bring up language contact since thats something traditional
> > hist/comp linguists see unable to deal with).
>
> They deal with it a lot. This is just your misinterpretation of your
> failure to convince anybody that it's the *only* force for language change.
>
>
>
> > With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
> > devolution, how do you explain
>
> > (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> > millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> > Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
>
> How do you know what they sounded like millennia ago?
Good sceptical attitude. You should read up on the measures used by
the transmitters of the Veda to preserve the fidelity of what each
generation received from the previous one. Were they perfect? I am
sure they were not. But the bottom line is that they were able to
successfully resist Prakritization of the material they considered to
be of value. The Veda being recited today is undoubtedly Sanskrit (I
am sure it is independent of the written form), living Sanskrit
(living in the sense that it would be transmitted in a school setting
to another generation) - whereas Sanskrit lives only thorugh its
degraded descendants among lay people.
Why can't you be equally sceptical of the alleged sounds of a language
whose existence is not attested by the merest scraps of evidence ?
>
> > (2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
> > their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
> > miles of separate development between them ?
>
> Are you under the impression that CBS and BBC newsreaders sound the same?
The sound much more similar than cockney and NewYawkese.
Harlan Messinger
> On Dec 22, 2:06 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> (I'll not bring up language contact since thats something traditional
>>> hist/comp linguists see unable to deal with).
>> They deal with it a lot. This is just your misinterpretation of your
>> failure to convince anybody that it's the *only* force for language change.
>>
>>> With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
>>> devolution, how do you explain
>>> (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
>>> millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
>>> Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
>> How do you know what they sounded like millennia ago?
>
> Good sceptical attitude. You should read up on the measures used by
> the transmitters of the Veda to preserve the fidelity of what each
> generation received from the previous one.
Oh, so you're talking about a situation where deliberate checks were put
into place. If that's true, then it automatically disqualifies this
example as a model for language in general, and it was useless for you
to bring it up.
> Why can't you be equally sceptical of the alleged sounds of a language
> whose existence is not attested by the merest scraps of evidence ?
Why do you keep asking these "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
type of questions? How many times have you already been told here, by me
and by others, that *everybody* is skeptical of any claim that the
reconstructions are unquestionable. You've also been told about how new
evidence that is inconsistent with a proto-language model as it exists
at any given time results in a reconsideration and updating of the
model. Your basic thread is, "Why do you believe this?" "We don't
believe it." "Uh huh. Well, why do you believe this?" "We already told
you, we don't believe this." "Yeah, well. Then why do you believe this?"
>>> (2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
>>> their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
>>> miles of separate development between them ?
>> Are you under the impression that CBS and BBC newsreaders sound the same?
>
> The sound much more similar than cockney and NewYawkese.
OK, I can't figure out your point. English has diverged into numerous
accents and dialects. Some are further apart then others are. So?
Peter T. Daniels
> Good sceptical attitude. You should read up on the measures used by
You're too fucking lazy to "read up on" anything at all, and you DARE
to instruct your intellectual superiors to do so?
anal...@hotmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 2:06 am, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> (I'll not bring up language contact since thats something traditional
> >>> hist/comp linguists see unable to deal with).
> >> They deal with it a lot. This is just your misinterpretation of your
> >> failure to convince anybody that it's the *only* force for language change.
>
> >>> With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
> >>> devolution, how do you explain
> >>> (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> >>> millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> >>> Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
> >> How do you know what they sounded like millennia ago?
>
> > Good sceptical attitude. You should read up on the measures used by
> > the transmitters of the Veda to preserve the fidelity of what each
> > generation received from the previous one.
>
> Oh, so you're talking about a situation where deliberate checks were put
> into place. If that's true, then it automatically disqualifies this
> example as a model for language in general, and it was useless for you
> to bring it up.
Thats the entire point actually. The possessors of a language have
strata that resist reductive change to different degrees. The
preservaton of the Veda might be an extreme example, but Peter
jennings and the BBC newsreader sounding similar is the same principle
(Pathashalas in one case and finishing schools(or their equivalent) in
the other).
Although we know factually that Dan Rather's language and cockney are
genetically related, if you use them to derive their protolanguage, it
will be incorrect.
As I glance through hist/comp ling works - time and again I see that
Sanskrit and Greek (and occasionally SKt Gk and Latin) are special
cases and this only reflects this very simple insight - that they
posssess the strong forms of words and grammar in the so-called IE
language family.
You can't look at words derived from reduction and words in their
pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit Vidhawa and Engish
Widow). The attempt to derive in PIE forms stronger than those of
Sanskrit greek and Latin seems totally infantile from the vantage
point of the 21st century - but makes sense only when placed in the
context of 19th century European nationalism/racism/imperialism.
>
> > Why can't you be equally sceptical of the alleged sounds of a language
> > whose existence is not attested by the merest scraps of evidence ?
>
> Why do you keep asking these "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
> type of questions? How many times have you already been told here, by me
> and by others, that *everybody* is skeptical of any claim that the
> reconstructions are unquestionable. You've also been told about how new
> evidence that is inconsistent with a proto-language model as it exists
> at any given time results in a reconsideration and updating of the
> model. Your basic thread is, "Why do you believe this?" "We don't
> believe it." "Uh huh. Well, why do you believe this?" "We already told
> you, we don't believe this." "Yeah, well. Then why do you believe this?"
This is a form of credulous scepticism. No matter which form is shown
to be erroneous (for example - does the german for "tooth" have a PIE
ancestor) I'll always believe some other ancestral form can be derived
that would patch the latest hole. Similarly with respect to the
homeland - I don't care that no single proposed homeland is consistent
with all the evidence, and I don't care that each mechanism of
dispersal- invasion or migration or tourism has its problems, I'll
continue to believe that some homeland/mechanism combination will be
found that would justify belief in the myth of PIE.
>
> >>> (2) The English spoken today by newsreaders of CBS and BBC given that
> >>> their respective languages have had more than three centuries and 3000
> >>> miles of separate development between them ?
> >> Are you under the impression that CBS and BBC newsreaders sound the same?
>
> > The sound much more similar than cockney and NewYawkese.
>
> OK, I can't figure out your point. English has diverged into numerous
> accents and dialects. Some are further apart then others are. So?- Hide quoted text -
Brian M. Scott
<anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:285d8d7a-1cc0-4e6f...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
in alt.lang, sci.lang:
> On Dec 22, 12:18 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Oh, so you're talking about a situation where deliberate
>> checks were put into place. If that's true, then it
>> automatically disqualifies this example as a model for
>> language in general, and it was useless for you to bring
>> it up.
> Thats the entire point actually. The possessors of a
> language have strata that resist reductive change to
> different degrees. The preservaton of the Veda might be
> an extreme example, but Peter jennings and the BBC
> newsreader sounding similar is the same principle
You must have a tin ear: they don't sound particularly
similar.
> (Pathashalas in one case and finishing schools(or their
> equivalent) in the other).
Peter Jennings was a high school dropout.
> Although we know factually that Dan Rather's language and
> cockney are genetically related, if you use them to
> derive their protolanguage, it will be incorrect.
Yet another pronunciamento based on nothing. (And embodying
more misconceptions than I can be bothered to deal with.)
> As I glance through hist/comp ling works - time and again
> I see that Sanskrit and Greek (and occasionally SKt Gk
> and Latin) are special cases and this only reflects this
> very simple insight - that they posssess the strong forms
> of words and grammar in the so-called IE language family.
This is meaningless babble, since you've been altogether
unable to define 'strong form'.
> You can't look at words derived from reduction and words
> in their pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit
> Vidhawa and Engish Widow).
Apparently *you* cannot do so, but *we* can certainly say
with confidence that Skt. <vidhávâ> and Eng. <widow> are
cognates, along with Latin <vidua> and Old Irish <fedb>,
from something like PIE *widHewa:-, a substantivized
feminine of *widHewo- 'separated'. But then we've taken the
trouble to learn some historical linguistics. (I ignore the
meaningless qualifiers 'pristine' and 'strong'.)
[...]
>>> Why can't you be equally sceptical of the alleged sounds
>>> of a language whose existence is not attested by the
>>> merest scraps of evidence ?
>> Why do you keep asking these "Have you stopped beating
>> your wife yet?" type of questions? How many times have
>> you already been told here, by me and by others, that
>> *everybody* is skeptical of any claim that the
>> reconstructions are unquestionable. You've also been
>> told about how new evidence that is inconsistent with a
>> proto-language model as it exists at any given time
>> results in a reconsideration and updating of the model.
>> Your basic thread is, "Why do you believe this?" "We
>> don't believe it." "Uh huh. Well, why do you believe
>> this?" "We already told you, we don't believe this."
>> "Yeah, well. Then why do you believe this?"
> This is a form of credulous scepticism. No matter which
> form is shown to be erroneous (for example - does the
> german for "tooth" have a PIE ancestor)
Yes.
> I'll always believe some other ancestral form can be derived
> that would patch the latest hole.
In other words, you acknowledge that (1) you have no
intention of actually learning anything about the subject,
and (2) your belief is an article of faith that takes
precedence over any evidence. You could hardly have offered
a clearer statement of why your opinion is utterly
worthless.
[...]
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Although we know factually that Dan Rather's language and cockney are
> genetically related, if you use them to derive their protolanguage, it
> will be incorrect.
Reconstructing a protolanguage from only 2 descendants has a higher
potential for error than reconstructing it from more descendants. If
Dan Rather says [aI TINk so] and a Cockney says [A fINk so], how would
we know whether [TINk] or [fINk] was the protolanguage's
pronunciation? If it was originally [fINk], then why do both Dan
Rather and Cockneys pronounce "fit" as [fIt]; why doesn't Dan Rather
pronounce it as [TIt]? So, it had to originally be [TINk] and the
reconstructed language would be more similar to Dan Rather's language;
to that extent, it would be correct. Why do you think it would be
incorrect?
> As I glance through hist/comp ling works - time and again I see that
> Sanskrit and Greek (and occasionally SKt Gk and Latin) are special
> cases and this only reflects this very simple insight - that they
> posssess the strong forms of words and grammar in the so-called IE
> language family.
>
> You can't look at words derived from reduction and words in their
> pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit Vidhawa and Engish
> Widow).
Arabic HwH -> Hindi, Turkish hawA.
HwH is an ancestor of hawA and also a cognate of havA.
Also, an archaic Arabic pronunciation of HwH and a modern Arabic
pronunciation of it are cognates.
Also, Latin "anus" is "annulus" in English and Latin "fabrica" is
"fabrication technique/ technology" in English which are augmented
rather than reduced forms.
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:13:15 -0800 (PST),
> <news:285d8d7a-1cc0-4e6f...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
> in alt.lang, sci.lang:
>
> > On Dec 22, 12:18 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
<snips>
>
> Peter Jennings was a high school dropout.
since you are obviously posting out of uncontrollable rage, this must
have seemed like a particularly satisfying gotcha! - until you see the
rest of the story:
Peter Jennings was a Canadian, only receiving his dual citizenship in
2003. He was born in 1939 in Ontario. His father, Charles Jennings,
was the anchor for the Canadian Broadcast Company (CBC). His
experience watching his father made Peter Jennings one of the best
self-taught anchors in the news business. He did not finish high
school, and never graduated college, though he was admitted to
Carleton University of Ottawa.
When Peter Jennings was nine, he hosted his own 30 minute kids show,
Peter's People on the CBC. He also enjoyed acting and appeared in
several amateur productions of musicals through his teen years and
into his 20s. He hosted a Canadian version of American Bandstand for a
short time, as well.
end quote.
Sonny, (that includes you too- Daniels) I'm your father and
grandfather put together at this game - you'll invariably get
humiliated and your incandescent rage would only increase if you
engage in combat with me.
>
<snips>
You can say anything about PIE since it can neither be proved nor
disproved.
But while you are at it, show me an attested case of "w" in the parent
changing to "v" in the descendant.
<snips>
> [...]
>
>> > form is shown to be erroneous (for example - does the
> > german for "tooth" have a PIE ancestor)
>
> Yes.
what is it?
<snips>
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 22, 2:06 am, Harlan Messinger
> > > (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> > > millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> > > Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
>
> > How do you know what they sounded like millennia ago?
>
> Good sceptical attitude. You should read up on the measures used by
> the transmitters of the Veda to preserve the fidelity of what each
> generation received from the previous one. Were they perfect? I am
> sure they were not. But the bottom line is that they were able to
> successfully resist Prakritization of the material they considered to
> be of value.
The English were equally able to resist "prakritization" of Beowulf;
you can still find it in its pristine original. It's not a composition
that changes, it's a language that changes; the changes would be found
in new compostions, not in extant compositions.
anal...@hotmail.com
What do you hope to accomplish by interjecting yourself in the middle
of an adult discussion with a schoolyard taunt thats actually aimed at
Messinger - "are you going to let him say this you" ?
Harlan Messinger
What you've just said is "No matter how many facts are presented to
prove I'm wrong, I'll stick to my belief." Then why are we wasting our
time talking to you OR caring what you think?
> Similarly with respect to the
> homeland - I don't care that no single proposed homeland is consistent
> with all the evidence, and I don't care that each mechanism of
> dispersal- invasion or migration or tourism has its problems, I'll
> continue to believe that some homeland/mechanism combination will be
> found that would justify belief in the myth of PIE.
This is the antithesis of analysis. Your Usenet handle couldn't possibly
fit your attitude less.
Harlan Messinger
Peter Jennings is *Canadian*, and anybody can tell that from listening
to him.
Moreover--are you aware that newscasters are mostly reading from
scripts/TelePrompTers? They usually aren't writing their own material or
speaking spontaneously.
> Although we know factually that Dan Rather's language and cockney are
> genetically related, if you use them to derive their protolanguage, it
> will be incorrect.
Yes, if you have a sample size of two, your model will be very crude and
useless. I already pointed this out when you quoted that dimwit who,
ludicrously, found a conclusion to be *forced* based on a "study" of
only two characteristics of only two languages. Once again, you are
attempting to make a point by criticizing scenarios not comparable to
the sorts of studies that are actually done. Maybe some day you will
learn to argue by presenting relevant observations rather than
irrelevant ones.
anal...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually you are ascribing to me my characterization of your denial of
blind belief in PIE. The "I" in that part of my post stands for "I, H
Messinger" or other diehard PIEists.
Joachim Pense
>>> > form is shown to be erroneous (for example - does the
>>> german for "tooth" have a PIE ancestor)
>>
>> Yes.
>
> what is it?
>
> <snips>
<http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE84.html>:
ENTRY: dent-
DEFINITION: Tooth. Originally *1d-ent-, “biting,” present participle
of ed- in the earlier meaning “to bite.” 1. O-grade form *dont-.
tooth, from Old English tth, tooth, from Germanic *tanthuz. 2.
Zero-grade form *dt-. tusk, from Old English tsc, tx, canine tooth,
from Germanic *tunth-sk-. 3. Full-grade form *dent-. dental, dentate,
denti-, denticle, dentist; dandelion, edentate, edentulous, indent1,
indenture, trident, from Latin dns (stem dent-), tooth. 4. O-grade
variant form *dont-, ultimately becoming odont- in Greek. –odon,
–odont, odonto-; ceratodus, mastodon, from Greek odn, odous, tooth.
(In Pokorny ed- 287.)
I wonder what the PIE ancestor of "danta" might be :-)
Joachim
Joachim
anal...@hotmail.com
> Am Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:55 -0800 (PST) schr
>
> >>> > form is shown to be erroneous (for example - does the
> >>> german for "tooth" have a PIE ancestor)
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > what is it?
>
> > <snips>
>
> <http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE84.html>:
>
> ENTRY: dent-
> DEFINITION: Tooth. Originally *1d-ent-, "biting," present participle
> of ed- in the earlier meaning "to bite." 1. O-grade form *dont-.
> tooth, from Old English tth, tooth, from Germanic *tanthuz. 2.
> Zero-grade form *dt-. tusk, from Old English tsc, tx, canine tooth,
> from Germanic *tunth-sk-. 3. Full-grade form *dent-. dental, dentate,
> denti-, denticle, dentist; dandelion, edentate, edentulous, indent1,
> indenture, trident, from Latin dns (stem dent-), tooth. 4. O-grade
> -odont, odonto-; ceratodus, mastodon, from Greek odn, odous, tooth.
> (In Pokorny ed- 287.)
>
> I wonder what the PIE ancestor of "danta" might be :-)
>
> Joachim
>
> Joachim
You sure?
I'll give you a chance to reconsider (Hint: check out our own Chris
Culver's Website).
Peter T. Daniels
Have you noticed that I've stopped bothering to give you clear
explanations of the things you were too lazy to look up for yourself,
since you routinely ignore them?
Instead, whenever you say something more idiotic than usual, I'll
point it out.
Isn't "shame" an important consideration in your culture?
Joachim Pense
Harlan Messinger
> On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:13:15 -0800 (PST),
>> <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:285d8d7a-1cc0-4e6f...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
>> in alt.lang, sci.lang:
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 12:18 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>
> <snips>
>> Peter Jennings was a high school dropout.
>
> since you are obviously posting out of uncontrollable rage, this must
> have seemed like a particularly satisfying gotcha! - until you see the
> rest of the story:
>
> Peter Jennings was a Canadian, only receiving his dual citizenship in
> 2003. He was born in 1939 in Ontario. His father, Charles Jennings,
> was the anchor for the Canadian Broadcast Company (CBC). His
> experience watching his father made Peter Jennings one of the best
> self-taught anchors in the news business.
He was watching his father? You mean he spent the day at the studio with
him? Or you mean he saw him on the news--which would make him no
different from any other kid who grows up exposed to TV news.
> He did not finish high
> school,
Like Brian said.
> and never graduated college, though he was admitted to
> Carleton University of Ottawa.
The first part of this implies that he attended but didn't get to the
end. The second implies that he didn't even go. Which is it?
>
> When Peter Jennings was nine, he hosted his own 30 minute kids show,
> Peter's People on the CBC.
What does this have to do with anything?
> He also enjoyed acting and appeared in
> several amateur productions of musicals through his teen years and
> into his 20s. He hosted a Canadian version of American Bandstand for a
> short time, as well.
>
> end quote.
>
> Sonny, (that includes you too- Daniels) I'm your father and
> grandfather put together at this game - you'll invariably get
> humiliated and your incandescent rage would only increase if you
> engage in combat with me.
Once again you imagine yourself humiliating people who have no respect
for your opinion or your conclusions.
>
> <snips>
>
> You can say anything about PIE since it can neither be proved nor
> disproved.
>
> But while you are at it, show me an attested case of "w" in the parent
> changing to "v" in the descendant.
You're kidding, right? Latin "v" before a vowel was /w/ and became /v/
or /B/ in French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. You've got plenty of
attested cases--"vinco", "venio", "video", "viginti" and many more--take
your pick.
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 12:57 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 22, 11:05 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Good sceptical attitude. You should read up on the measures used by
>
> > > You're too fucking lazy to "read up on" anything at all, and you DARE
> > > to instruct your intellectual superiors to do so?
>
> > What do you hope to accomplish by interjecting yourself in the middle
> > of an adult discussion with a schoolyard taunt thats actually aimed at
> > Messinger - "are you going to let him say this you" ?
>
> Have you noticed that I've stopped bothering to give you clear
> explanations of the things you were too lazy to look up for yourself,
> since you routinely ignore them?
No; have you been giving clear explanations of things? Must have
been in your dreams.
>
> Instead, whenever you say something more idiotic than usual, I'll
> point it out.
>
> Isn't "shame" an important consideration in your culture?
You have made it abundantly clear that it is not for you (I'll not
generalize from one individual to an entire culture).
Harlan Messinger
You didn't say you won't believe it blindly. You said you won't believe
it at all. Big difference.
Brian M. Scott
<anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<news:27e118df-bd42-4d2b...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
in alt.lang, sci.lang:
> On Dec 22, 1:53 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:13:15 -0800 (PST),
>> <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:285d8d7a-1cc0-4e6f...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
>> in alt.lang, sci.lang:
>>> On Dec 22, 12:18 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> [...]
> <snips>
Snips indeed: you've carefully snipped the false claim to
which I was replying. You wrote 'The preservaton of the
Veda might be an extreme example, but Peter jennings and the
BBC newsreader sounding similar is the same principle
(Pathashalas in one case and finishing schools(or their
equivalent) in the other)'. To the last claim I responded:
>> Peter Jennings was a high school dropout.
> since you are obviously posting out of uncontrollable rage,
Mmm, no. Mild disgust, actually.
> this must have seemed like a particularly satisfying
> gotcha! - until you see the rest of the story:
The rest of the story does nothing to substantiate your
false claim about Peter Jennings' background.
[...]
> Sonny, (that includes you too- Daniels) I'm your father
> and grandfather put together at this game -
Now you want to blame your difficulties on senility? No, I
don't think so: they're too obviously the result of wilful
ignorance.
> you'll invariably get humiliated and your incandescent
> rage would only increase if you engage in combat with me.
<snicker> Wishful thinking on steroids.
[...]
>>> form is shown to be erroneous (for example - does the
>>> german for "tooth" have a PIE ancestor)
>> Yes.
> what is it?
Find out for yourself; the information is readily available.
Brian M. Scott
<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in
<news:1045mep58x7d7.1kruwpcylx1tx$.d...@40tude.net> in
alt.lang,sci.lang:
> Am Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:28:45 -0800 (PST) schrieb
> anal...@hotmail.com:
>> On Dec 22, 3:24 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[...]
>>> <http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE84.html>:
>>> ENTRY: dent-
[...]
>> You sure?
>> I'll give you a chance to reconsider (Hint: check out our own Chris
>> Culver's Website).
> Where there?
Nothing relevant, so far as I can see, but you can look for
yourself: <http://christopherculver.com/en/index.php>.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
<news:ctfdgnzmksq7.gr7joeyqcebu$.d...@40tude.net> in
alt.lang,sci.lang:
> [...]
>>>> <http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE84.html>:
>>>> ENTRY: dent-
> [...]
>>> You sure?
>> Where there?
Sorry, misread your post as 'What's there?'.
Brian
Joachim Pense
That's where I looked, and that's why I asked.
Joachim
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> genetically related, if you use them to derive their protolanguage, it
> will be incorrect.
Reconstructing a protolanguage from only 2 descendants has a higher
potential for error than reconstructing it from more descendants. If
Dan Rather says [aI TINk so] and a Cockney says [A fINk so], how would
we know whether [TINk] or [fINk] was the protolanguage's
pronunciation? If it was originally [fINk], then why do both Dan
Rather and Cockneys pronounce "fit" as [fIt]; why doesn't Dan Rather
pronounce it as [TIt]? So, it had to originally be [TINk] and the
reconstructed language would be more similar to Dan Rather's language;
to that extent, it would be correct. Why do you think it would be
incorrect?
> As I glance through hist/comp ling works - time and again I see that
> Sanskrit and Greek (and occasionally SKt Gk and Latin) are special
> cases and this only reflects this very simple insight - that they
> posssess the strong forms of words and grammar in the so-called IE
> language family.
> You can't look at words derived from reduction and words in their
> pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit Vidhawa and Engish
> Widow).
Arabic HwH -> Hindi, Turkish hawA.
Suppose it is hawA in modern Arabic too and it's still HwH on Arabic
newsmedia.
Then, classical Arabic HwH, Newsmedia Arabic HwH and modern Arabic
hawA are cognates.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> > You can't look at words derived from reduction and words
> > in their pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit
> > Vidhawa and Engish Widow).
>
> Apparently *you* cannot do so, but *we* can certainly say
> with confidence that Skt. <vidhávâ> and Eng. <widow> are
> cognates, along with Latin <vidua>
Is this a modern respelling of Classical Latin or is it Medieval
Latin? In Classical Latin, it had to be <vidva>.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> show me an attested case of "w" in the parent
> changing to "v" in the descendant.
Classical Latin [w]->Ecclesiastical Latin [v], Portuguese [v] ([v]
meaning a bilabial approximant, not a fricative). Classical Latin had
pronunciations of [w], [U] and [u] for the spelling [v]. We know this
because the Greeks wrote it as <ou> in loanwords from Latin.
So, say wenny widdy wikky, not venny viddy vichy, if you want to sound
like Gayus Yoolyus Kesaar.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Dec 21, 8:51 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 5:11 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 20, 7:45 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > It is probably not true even with a single word in all of the world's
> > > > > languages that it was spoken in one way by some speakers who then
> > > > > split up and slowly started saying the same word differently.
>
> > > > And no one has suggested that that's what happens.
>
> > > > What happens is that _successive generations_ have slightly different
> > > > languages from their parents and deeper ancestors, and as
> > > > _communities_ grow apart, these differences cumulate in different ways
> > > > in the different communities.
>
> > > > When a community do not split up, changes ripple through it in
> > > > different directions with different sources, and usually end up
> > > > affecting the entire speech-community, or else result in noticeable
> > > > dialect differences within the community.
>
> > > There are three phenomena described here here and we should separate
> > > them out.
>
> > > (1) The imperfect duplication over time of a single lanaguage in an
> > > unchanging area - each succeding generation speaks a language thats
> > > like a Xerox copy of the previous generation's - small changes
> > > accumulate over time
>
> > > (2) Time and space - a speech community splits into more than one due
> > > to migration and each geographically separate sub-community does its
> > > imperfect xerox-copying over time with only partial contact with the
> > > others
>
> > > (3) internal reduction and generation emanating from different strata
> > > of the speech community
>
> > > (I'll not bring up language contact since thats something traditional
> > > hist/comp linguists see unable to deal with).
>
> > all about language contact.
>
> > > With your reductionist entropic theory of language evolution/
> > > devolution, how do you explain
>
> > > (1) the remarkably faithful oral transmission of the vedic chants over
> > > millenia and large geographical distances (1000 miles or so between
> > > Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh?
>
> > Lord's prayer in Latin has remained unchanged for 1700 years. When
> > Americans and Englishmen speak lines from Shakespeare, they use the
> > same language in the US and UK. When they sing hymns, they use the
> > same language for the same hymn; eg., Silent night.
>
> Did you see the movie National Lampoon's European vacation in which
> Chevy Chase talks to a cockney hotel desk clerk and tries to type in
> what he hears into his multi-language translator and his son says,
> "he's speaking english,dad"
>
> Every language at a given time has
>
> (1) Social strata that see value in the sounds and grammar of the
> language handed down to them and try to preserve it. I would include
> the religious elite in this stratum during historical periods when
> they had the support of the secular rulers.
>
> (2) Social strata that see value in preserving language but can only
> imitate the upper classes
>
> (3) Social strata that have linguistic needs indifferent to or opposed
> to preservataion
>
> (4) technical innovators - specialized tradespeople who might innovate
> words for their specialized needs
>
> (5) creative innovators (e.g. Shakespeare, Tagore) - they affect the
> language creatively and can cause all kinds of changes - innovate new
> words, phrases, introduce new usages in words and grammar, cause
> established words and grammatical forms to go out of fashion, sanction
> the acceptability of lower class words and grammar by their adoption
> of it etc.
>
> Hist/comp ling has to consider all this.
Hist/comp ling does consider all this. Why don't you learn something
about it instead of issuing pronouncements about what it "has to
consider"?
I have noticed that none of
> the regulars here has taken up my challenge to apply traditional comp
> ling to the descent of American, Australian Canadian and South African
> English from British.
Once again, you offer no good reason why we should waste our time with
your various "challenges", "exercises", etc. They are generally based
on false premises (what else have you got?) and your apparently
incurable delusion that you are going to demolish comparative
linguistics without having to learn anything.
> You don't need any guesswork here at all - the words, sounds and
> grammar in all cases are accessible to us even from our daily life,
> not to speak of the vast literary and journalistic sources in all the
> language-varieties.
>
> My observations are
>
> (1) consonant changes appear to be limited
>
> (2) There are significant vowel changes - but the upper class
> pronunciation and grammar across varieties seems to be much more
> similar than those of the middle and lower classes.
>
> (3) Dialectal variations within a variety appear to be of the same
> order of magnitude as dialectal variations across varieties.
See any number of books on the history and varieties of English for
much detail on all of this.
> All this goes to show that tree diagrams are infantile
Your ability to relate evidence to conclusions is severly defective.
- all kinds of
> social factors govern language change.
Thanks, we knew that. (Your vanity, by contrast, seems unimpaired.)
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:0e35d3ec-cb42-4166...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
in alt.lang, sci.lang:
> On Dec 22, 10:53 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>> You can't look at words derived from reduction and words
>>> in their pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit
>>> Vidhawa and Engish Widow).
>> Apparently *you* cannot do so, but *we* can certainly say
>> with confidence that Skt. <vidhávâ> and Eng. <widow> are
>> cognates, along with Latin <vidua>
> Is this a modern respelling of Classical Latin or is it Medieval
> Latin? In Classical Latin, it had to be <vidva>.
Standard modern spelling of Classical Latin, of course.
[...]
Brian
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:20:13 -0800 (PST),
> in
> <news:0e35d3ec-cb42-4166...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
> in alt.lang, sci.lang:
>
> > On Dec 22, 10:53 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >>> You can't look at words derived from reduction and words
> >>> in their pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit
> >>> Vidhawa and Engish Widow).
> >> Apparently *you* cannot do so, but *we* can certainly say
> >> with confidence that Skt. <vidhávâ> and Eng. <widow> are
> >> cognates, along with Latin <vidua>
> > Is this a modern respelling of Classical Latin or is it Medieval
> > Latin? In Classical Latin, it had to be <vidva>.
>
> Standard modern spelling of Classical Latin, of course.
I find it easier to imagine its having had a [dw] like in Dwight than
a [du]
Harlan Messinger
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:13:15 -0800 (PST),
> <anal...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <news:285d8d7a-1cc0-4e6f...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
> in alt.lang, sci.lang:
>> in their pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit
>> Vidhawa and Engish Widow).
>
> Apparently *you* cannot do so, but *we* can certainly say
> with confidence that Skt. <vidhávâ> and Eng. <widow> are
> cognates, along with Latin <vidua> and Old Irish <fedb>,
> from something like PIE *widHewa:-, a substantivized
> feminine of *widHewo- 'separated'.
German "Witwe", Dutch, "weduwe", Old English "wuduwe", Old High German
"wituwa".
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:45:55 -0800 (PST),
You are dancing like a monkey in response to the organ grinder -
you're affecting amused sarcasm now instead of raw rage - buts thats
because I called you on it - but the rage it hasn't gone anywhere. I
can handle guys like you in my sleep.
> > you'll invariably get humiliated and your incandescent
> > rage would only increase if you engage in combat with me.
>
> <snicker> Wishful thinking on steroids.
>
> [...]
>
> >>> form is shown to be erroneous (for example - does the
> >>> german for "tooth" have a PIE ancestor)
> >> Yes.
> > what is it?
>
> Find out for yourself; the information is readily available.
do you know?
What Pense posted is wrong.
I even gave a hint where to get the latest fairy tale about "tooth" in
prto-Germanic.".
Brian M. Scott
<hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:5t5gbmF...@mid.individual.net> in
alt.lang,sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
Gothic <widuwo:>. (But I believe that ON <ekkja> is from
*h3ey-no- 'one' with some ending.)
Brian
anal...@hotmail.com
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
A newsreader on the evening news has to connect with the people
strongly and his language is a key element in this connection and he
must have received training in it either formally or informally. Why
does this kind of obvious truth have to be argued about?
> > He also enjoyed acting and appeared in
> > several amateur productions of musicals through his teen years and
> > into his 20s. He hosted a Canadian version of American Bandstand for a
> > short time, as well.
>
> > end quote.
>
> > Sonny, (that includes you too- Daniels) I'm your father and
> > grandfather put together at this game - you'll invariably get
> > humiliated and your incandescent rage would only increase if you
> > engage in combat with me.
>
> Once again you imagine yourself humiliating people who have no respect
> for your opinion or your conclusions.
The less respect they claim to have for their humiliator, the more is
the actual humiliation - which these poor, transparent souls then
proceed to give evidence for in subsequent posts.
>
>
>
> > <snips>
>
> > You can say anything about PIE since it can neither be proved nor
> > disproved.
>
> > But while you are at it, show me an attested case of "w" in the parent
> > changing to "v" in the descendant.
>
> You're kidding, right? Latin "v" before a vowel was /w/ and became /v/
> or /B/ in French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. You've got plenty of
> attested cases--"vinco", "venio", "video", "viginti" and many more--take
> your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This looks very suspicious. Spanish doesn't have v at all. One
source says the latin v had a sound between "wet" and "vase". Also
the stregthening of Classical latin v to the v of English might have
happened in ecclesiastical Latin before descent into the Romance
languages.
So I don't agree that you have given a clear cut example of "w"
descending to "v".
Until you can do that "vidhava" as the source of "widow" etc. is the
most scientific explanation.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Well, we'll have to leave you imagining this, since there is no
external authority to judge the matter.
However, I admit that you have not suffered any humiliation in this
discussion, since humiliation presupposes an awareness of one's
failure.
> > > <snips>
>
> > > You can say anything about PIE since it can neither be proved nor
> > > disproved.
>
> > > But while you are at it, show me an attested case of "w" in the parent
> > > changing to "v" in the descendant.
>
> > You're kidding, right? Latin "v" before a vowel was /w/ and became /v/
> > or /B/ in French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. You've got plenty of
> > attested cases--"vinco", "venio", "video", "viginti" and many more--take
> > your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This looks very suspicious. Spanish doesn't have v at all.
It has [b] and [B], which will do just as well for an example of
strengthening of [w].
One
> source says the latin v had a sound between "wet" and "vase".
So this is the source you will cherish? All other sources agree that
it was [w].
Also
> the stregthening of Classical latin v to the v of English might have
> happened in ecclesiastical Latin before descent into the Romance
> languages.
In what way would its changing in ecclesiastical Latin make it less of
a change?
> So I don't agree that you have given a clear cut example of "w"
> descending to "v".
When you get done weaseling on this one, you can consider the parallel
strengthening of Latin [y] to [Z] in French.
Ross Clark
anal...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <0ea11062-4234-444f-ba56-b9c7c64bf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 4:30 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
>
> > > Or are you suggesting that lenition turns strong forms into weak
> > > forms.
>
> > > In which case, what do epenthesis and fortition do?!
>
> > If you show me instances from language descent,
>
> How can you possibly have any serious interest in historical
> linguistics and an IQ above 75, and still not be able to come up with
> examples of epenthesis and fortition off the top of your head?!
>
> Assuming you indeed have a serious interest in historical linguistics,
> I'll help you out:
>
> epenthesis: Latin stella, skola > Spanish estrella, eskuela
clearly weaker, no question.
>
> more epenthesis: Latin hominus, nominare > Spanish hombre, nombrar
may not be phonologically weaker, but a clear rusticization is
visible.
> (cf. French homme, nommer with no [b])
The reduction of value is clearer here.
>
> fortition: devoicing of voiced stops in Grimm's Law (English ten,
> Danish ti; cf. Sanskrit dasan, Russian des'at, Greek deka, Latin dekem)
dekem seems the strongest here.
>
> more fortition: occlusion of interdental fricatives [T] and [D] in
> various dialects of English (AAVE, etc.)
If this is internal to English, I'm not interested at this point in
time.
>
> even more fortition: hardening of [w] to [v] in numerous languages
> (Romance, Slavic, etc.)
very interesting. I claim that the stregthening happened within Latin
first (classical to ecclesiastical) before descent.
>
> Some other types of non-reductive sound changes that I didn't mention
> before include vowel lengthening and diphthongization. Do I need to
> give you examples of these too?
Since I am arguing from elementary common sense - bring it on.
>
> And after all this, do you still think that "[a]ll sound changes are
> reductive"?
>
yes - whenever one language breaks up into many - of which there seem
to be only two attested examples (which apparently show striking
parallels in the reduction of linguistic value) Sanskrit to modern
Northern Indian languages and Latin to Romance languages.
> > My contention is that Sanskrit sounds were strong forms at the time
> > contact began with Old Greek (Which had its own strong forms) and Old
> > Latin (with fewer strong forms) and the alleged cognates in all IE
> > languages are derived from lenition of the strong forms of Sanskirt,
> > Old Greek and Old Latin.
>
> Then your contention is wrong. The [p t k] in Germanic languages due
> to devoicing in Grimm's Law correspond to [b d g] in Sanskrit (and
> other IE languages), and devoicing is most certainly a type of
> fortition, not a type of lenition.
I'll have to get back to you on this.
>
> > > How do you propose to measure whether something "conveys gravitas"?
>
> > Go hear Vedic chanting. The Muslim call to prayer and Gregorian
> > chants convey gravitas also - but the solemnity and sacredness of
> > sanskrit was known from much earlier and individual words and even
> > sounds of Sanskrit convey this quality.
>
> What a surprise: gravitas comes about when a religious person uses a
> language in a solemn religious setting. How completely and utterly
> boringly obvious.
>
> > Watch the movie "My fair lady" - Higgins was trying to teach Eliza to
> > speak with gravitas.
>
> But she was still speaking English!
>
> Which means gravitas is not, as I suspected, an inherent, measurable
> property of a language itself, but rather only has something to do
> with the manner in which it is used.
Not true at all. Gravitas ultimately may be a relative social
construct, but at every instance of language descent, there must have
been a reduction of gravitas from the parent to the descendants as
defined by the affected society at the time of the descent.
>
> Can we get back to historical linguistics now and leave the
> sociolinguistics aside?
>
This kind of Danielsian petulance is unbecoming. "just the facts,
ma'am" in the immortal words of Joe Friday.
> Nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sanders
> Linguistics Program
> Williams Collegehttp://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
anal...@hotmail.com
I asked for a w to v change during descent.
If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
(unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent).
Kind of - you guessed it, sad.
>
>
>
> > Until you can do that "vidhava" as the source of "widow" etc. is the
> > most scientific explanation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:53 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> > > You can't look at words derived from reduction and words
> > > in their pristine strong forms as cognates (say sanskrit
> > > Vidhawa and Engish Widow).
>
> > Apparently *you* cannot do so, but *we* can certainly say
> > with confidence that Skt. <vidhávâ> and Eng. <widow> are
> > cognates, along with Latin <vidua>
>
> Is this a modern respelling of Classical Latin or is it Medieval
> Latin? In Classical Latin, it had to be <vidva>.
The convention is to use <u> in lowercase, <V> in capitals, thus uidua
or VIDVA depending whether you're transcribing a manuscript or an
inscription respectively..
Peter T. Daniels
> Since I am arguing from elementary common sense - bring it on.
Try arguing from facts sometime.
The timings of your posting strongly suggests that you are in the
Western Hemisphere (i.e., you're awake at the same times I am). Maybe
you're aware of the last time someone with access to media said "Bring
it on"? It was not a happy moment for the world.
> > And after all this, do you still think that "[a]ll sound changes are
> > reductive"?
>
> yes - whenever one language breaks up into many - of which there seem
> to be only two attested examples (which apparently show striking
> parallels in the reduction of linguistic value) Sanskrit to modern
> Northern Indian languages and Latin to Romance languages.
So you've never heard of Arabic or Chinese or Aramaic?
Peter T. Daniels
> I asked for a w to v change during descent.
You were given at least a dozen examples of w changing to v over time,
and all within a single language phylum (IE). Since no one but you
thinks there is such a thing as "descent," you're going to have to do
your own research this time.
> If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent).
Only you know what "descent" is, so why don't you explain whether it
is or isn't?
Nathan Sanders
<6a9e168e-3393-482f...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 21, 11:59 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > How can you possibly have any serious interest in historical
> > linguistics and an IQ above 75, and still not be able to come up with
> > examples of epenthesis and fortition off the top of your head?!
> >
> > Assuming you indeed have a serious interest in historical linguistics,
> > I'll help you out:
> >
> > epenthesis: Latin stella, skola > Spanish estrella, eskuela
>
> clearly weaker, no question.
Wait wait wait... if epenthesis is weakening, and deletion is the
opposite of epenthesis, then deletion must *strengthening*.
You think it's *stronger* (i.e., *non-reductive*) to *eliminate*
sounds?
Your illogic knows now bounds!
Please, clarify your position: of deletion and epenthesis, which one
is weakening, and which one is strengthening? Until you can decide on
something so simple, you don't have a prayer of understanding more
complex phenomena.
> > more epenthesis: Latin hominus, nominare > Spanish hombre, nombrar
>
> may not be phonologically weaker, but a clear rusticization is
> visible.
"Clear" to whom? Someone with a personal agenda?
> > (cf. French homme, nommer with no [b])
>
> The reduction of value is clearer here.
Duh. That was the whole point. Lack of [b] is weaker, presence of
[b] is stronger, ergo, the Spanish forms are stronger than the Latin
and French forms. And yet, Spanish is descended from Latin...
> > fortition: devoicing of voiced stops in Grimm's Law (English ten,
> > Danish ti; cf. Sanskrit dasan, Russian des'at, Greek deka, Latin dekem)
>
> dekem seems the strongest here.
Then you have a very broken definition of "strong", since voiced stops
are definitely weaker than voiceless stops.
> > more fortition: occlusion of interdental fricatives [T] and [D] in
> > various dialects of English (AAVE, etc.)
>
> If this is internal to English, I'm not interested at this point in
> time.
Of course you aren't interested, because it's yet another fact about
language that contradicts your willful ignorance.
> > even more fortition: hardening of [w] to [v] in numerous languages
> > (Romance, Slavic, etc.)
>
> very interesting. I claim that the stregthening happened within Latin
> first (classical to ecclesiastical) before descent.
Where's your proof of this claim? And what's your explanation for
Slavic? For German? For Spanish's continued hardening (Latin [w] >
Romance [v] > Spanish [b/B])?
> > Some other types of non-reductive sound changes that I didn't mention
> > before include vowel lengthening and diphthongization. Do I need to
> > give you examples of these too?
>
> Since I am arguing from elementary common sense - bring it on.
vowel lengthening:
before voiced sounds (English, Lechitic/Old Polish, etc.)
due to accent shift (neo-acute accent in West Slavic, etc.)
iambic lengthening (Yidiny, Hixkaryana, Yupik, etc.)
diphthongization:
English i:,u: > aj,aw due to the Great Vowel Shift
diphthongization of nasal vowels in Polish
Latin E,O > Spanish je,we
> > And after all this, do you still think that "[a]ll sound changes are
> > reductive"?
>
> yes
Then you have a broken and utterly useless definition of "reductive".
> > > My contention is that Sanskrit sounds were strong forms at the time
> > > contact began with Old Greek (Which had its own strong forms) and Old
> > > Latin (with fewer strong forms) and the alleged cognates in all IE
> > > languages are derived from lenition of the strong forms of Sanskirt,
> > > Old Greek and Old Latin.
> >
> > Then your contention is wrong. The [p t k] in Germanic languages due
> > to devoicing in Grimm's Law correspond to [b d g] in Sanskrit (and
> > other IE languages), and devoicing is most certainly a type of
> > fortition, not a type of lenition.
>
> I'll have to get back to you on this.
By all means, take your time to do some studying and heavy thinking,
and then come back and let us know whether it's voicing or devoicing
that is weakening (with the other obviously being strengthening, of
course!).
benl...@ihug.co.nz
No response? Ah, too busy weaseling on the other one. But this one is
equally fatal to your claim that all sound changes are reductive.
> I asked for a w to v change during descent.
>
> If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent)
Well, you will (conveniently) have to be the judge of that, since
"descent" is your notion. And of course so is the idea that w > v took
place in Ecclesiastical Latin. Does this entail that French and
Spanish are derived from Ecclesiastical Latin?
And anyhow, if the Catholic Church can make sound changes which are
not permitted to ordinary folk, wouldn't the priests of the Vedic
religion have been able to do the same?
> Kind of - you guessed it, sad.
>
> > > Until you can do that "vidhava" as the source of "widow" etc. is the
> > > most scientific explanation.-
Kind of -- you guessed it --- funny. The "scientific" part, I mean.
Ross Clark
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
It has words with <v> which is pronounced either as b or like the
Tamil v depending on the context.
> One
> source says the latin v had a sound between "wet" and "vase".
It was like a Tamil v is now. villa had a v like in Tamil vil meaning
bow. It would have been like w when an o was after it, like in voca or
Tamil OT pronounced [wo:t.] and meaning vote.
> Also
> the stregthening of Classical latin v to the v of English might have
> happened in ecclesiastical Latin before descent into the Romance
> languages.
English has 2 v's - fricative (like German w) and approximant (like
Portuguese v) both of which are used in the word "velvet".
Ecclesiastical Latin has only the second one.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> I asked for a w to v change during descent.
Sanskrit [de:waH]* -> Hindi [de:v].
Harlan Messinger
> On Dec 22, 3:37 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Once again you imagine yourself humiliating people who have no respect
>> for your opinion or your conclusions.
>
> The less respect they claim to have for their humiliator,
I see--this is really all about the power you fantasize yourself to have
to reduce people to humiliation. Again, they'd have to have respect for
you to be humiliated by you.
>>
>>> <snips>
>>> You can say anything about PIE since it can neither be proved nor
>>> disproved.
>>> But while you are at it, show me an attested case of "w" in the parent
>>> changing to "v" in the descendant.
>> You're kidding, right? Latin "v" before a vowel was /w/ and became /v/
>> or /B/ in French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. You've got plenty of
>> attested cases--"vinco", "venio", "video", "viginti" and many more--take
>> your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This looks very suspicious. Spanish doesn't have v at all. One
> source says the latin v had a sound between "wet" and "vase".
What source? Another Internet ninny who you managed to dig up who said
something questionable or ignorant but that happens to let you continue
to maintain your nonsensical ideas?
> Also
> the stregthening of Classical latin v to the v of English might have
> happened in ecclesiastical Latin before descent into the Romance
> languages.
I'm wondering what you think it is about the word "descent" that makes
it apply only when you want it to. Whatever the state a language is in
after any transition, it is descended from the state the language was in
before the transition. This is true whether one is talking about 15th
century English from 14th century English or Vulgar Latin from Classical
Latin or Afrikaans from Proto-Germanic. You asked for a case of [w]
changing to [v]. You got it.
> So I don't agree that you have given a clear cut example of "w"
> descending to "v".
Since on principle you agree with nothing this doesn't surprise me.
> Until you can do that "vidhava" as the source of "widow" etc. is the
> most scientific explanation.
From the evidence you a poor judge of which explanations are or aren't
scientific.
By the way, has anybody mentioned to you the devoicing of consonants at
the end of words that took place in German (but not Yiddish), Dutch, and
Russian?
Harlan Messinger
To repeat what I just wrote elsewhere: of course it is. What do you
think makes the word "descent" apply selectively? The use of the word
here is your peculiarity anyway, but what ever you may suppose it to
mean, there is no qualitative distinction between a transformation from
one language as it becomes a language that we happen to call by the same
basic name but with a different adjective and a transformation between a
language into later languages with different names.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-DC63A2.00043523122007@[89.0.209.64.dynamic.barak-online.net]>
in alt.lang,sci.lang:
[...]
> For Spanish's continued hardening (Latin [w] > Romance
> [v] > Spanish [b/B])?
Isn't that Latin [w] > Late Latin [B], developing variously
to [v], [B], and [b] in the Romance dialects?
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> English has 2 v's - fricative (like German w) and approximant (like
> Portuguese v) both of which are used in the word "velvet".
???????????????
Maybe in India.
Like the "Help" person who kept asking me if I had a virus, but it
turned out she was asking if I had wireless.
anal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
No weaseling at all. can't deal with all questions at the same time.
In fcat, a guy called Toby Griffen claims that Germanic has the
strongest sounds and his (sadly, single parent) tree looks like
Germano-european
Germano Armenian Indo European
Germanic Armenian C S
celtic Italic Hellenic etc. Balt-
Slav Ind-Ir
I'll consider all inputs before coming out with my complete PIE-
slaying theory.
>
> No response? Ah, too busy weaseling on the other one. But this one is
> equally fatal to your claim that all sound changes are reductive.
>
> > I asked for a w to v change during descent.
>
> > If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> > (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent)
>
> Well, you will (conveniently) have to be the judge of that, since
> "descent" is your notion.
And of course so is the idea that w > v took
> place in Ecclesiastical Latin. Does this entail that French and
> Spanish are derived from Ecclesiastical Latin?
You have me confused with traditional hits/comp linguists - they are
the ones with the single-parent infantile obsession.
As far as the exceptions to my law are concerned, I am sure Verners
and Saussures to my Grimm will eventually show up.
>
> And anyhow, if the Catholic Church can make sound changes which are
> not permitted to ordinary folk, wouldn't the priests of the Vedic
> religion have been able to do the same?
>
> > Kind of - you guessed it, sad.
>
> > > > Until you can do that "vidhava" as the source of "widow" etc. is the
> > > > most scientific explanation.-
>
> Kind of -- you guessed it --- funny. The "scientific" part, I mean.
>
> Ross Clark- Hide quoted text -
anal...@hotmail.com
>
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 11:59 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > How can you possibly have any serious interest in historical
> > > linguistics and an IQ above 75, and still not be able to come up with
> > > examples of epenthesis and fortition off the top of your head?!
>
> > > Assuming you indeed have a serious interest in historical linguistics,
> > > I'll help you out:
>
> > > epenthesis: Latin stella, skola > Spanish estrella, eskuela
>
> > clearly weaker, no question.
>
> Wait wait wait... if epenthesis is weakening, and deletion is the
> opposite of epenthesis, then deletion must *strengthening*.
>
> You think it's *stronger* (i.e., *non-reductive*) to *eliminate*
> sounds?
>
> Your illogic knows now bounds!
elm - ellum
I might take that road - Oi moight tayke that rowd
Christmas - Kalikimaka
The direction of weaking is clear - it does not depend on the quantity
of sounds.
Nathan Sanders
Perhaps. Do we know for sure (I don't) that it was [B] and not [v] in
Late Latin?
anal...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
As long as stregthening transformations are still happening, it is
still the same language. At the time of "speciation" to use hist/comp
ling's horrific term (when the center ceases to hold, to use a
civilized version)- there is a mass of reductive transformations that
render the descendants no longer mutually intelligible.
Nathan Sanders
<7594ee27-70ab-4020...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
anal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:04 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > Wait wait wait... if epenthesis is weakening, and deletion is the
> > opposite of epenthesis, then deletion must *strengthening*.
> >
> > You think it's *stronger* (i.e., *non-reductive*) to *eliminate*
> > sounds?
> >
> > Your illogic knows now bounds!
>
> elm - ellum
> I might take that road - Oi moight tayke that rowd
> Christmas - Kalikimaka
>
> The direction of weaking is clear - it does not depend on the quantity
> of sounds.
You have a broken definition of "weakening". You really should get
your money back from your ESL teachers.
> > > very interesting. I claim that the stregthening happened within Latin
> > > first (classical to ecclesiastical) before descent.
> >
> > Where's your proof of this claim? And what's your explanation for
> > Slavic? For German? For Spanish's continued hardening (Latin [w] >
> > Romance [v] > Spanish [b/B])?
No proof? No explanation? No surprise!
anal...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <7594ee27-70ab-4020-9642-ab469a8a9...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 12:04 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Wait wait wait... if epenthesis is weakening, and deletion is the
> > > opposite of epenthesis, then deletion must *strengthening*.
>
> > > You think it's *stronger* (i.e., *non-reductive*) to *eliminate*
> > > sounds?
>
> > > Your illogic knows now bounds!
>
> > elm - ellum
> > I might take that road - Oi moight tayke that rowd
> > Christmas - Kalikimaka
>
> > The direction of weaking is clear - it does not depend on the quantity
> > of sounds.
>
> You have a broken definition of "weakening".
and you sound like a broken record with the "broken definition".
> You really should get
> your money back from your ESL teachers.
Even Daniels can come up with something less infantile.
>
> > > > very interesting. I claim that the stregthening happened within Latin
> > > > first (classical to ecclesiastical) before descent.
>
> > > Where's your proof of this claim? And what's your explanation for
> > > Slavic? For German? For Spanish's continued hardening (Latin [w] >
> > > Romance [v] > Spanish [b/B])?
>
> No proof? No explanation? No surprise!
>
> Nathan
>
Very easy to emulate your argument by assertion and schoolyard
taunts. But a well-considered reply is going to take time.
> --
> Nathan Sanders
> Linguistics Program
> Williams Collegehttp://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/- Hide quoted text -
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 23, 1:35 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > English has 2 v's - fricative (like German w) and approximant (like
> > Portuguese v) both of which are used in the word "velvet".
> ???????????????
>
> Maybe in India.
In Anglos' English, an initial v is often fricative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fricative_consonant
# [v] voiced labiodental fricative, as in English vine
In Anglos' English, an intervocalic* v is often approximant like in a
British Shakesperian actor's pronunciation of "evil".
* vocalized liquids counting as vowels too.
> Like the "Help" person who kept asking me if I had a virus, but it
> turned out she was asking if I had wireless.
That would probably have started with a labiodental approximant; at
any rate, it doesn't have as much friction as an Anglo's pronunciation
of "vine".
Peter T. Daniels
> On Dec 23, 11:14 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7594ee27-70ab-4020-9642-ab469a8a9...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 23, 12:04 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > > > Wait wait wait... if epenthesis is weakening, and deletion is the
> > > > opposite of epenthesis, then deletion must *strengthening*.
>
> > > > You think it's *stronger* (i.e., *non-reductive*) to *eliminate*
> > > > sounds?
>
> > > > Your illogic knows now bounds!
>
> > > elm - ellum
> > > I might take that road - Oi moight tayke that rowd
> > > Christmas - Kalikimaka
>
> > > The direction of weaking is clear - it does not depend on the quantity
> > > of sounds.
>
> > You have a broken definition of "weakening".
>
> and you sound like a broken record with the "broken definition".
>
> > You really should get
> > your money back from your ESL teachers.
>
> Even Daniels can come up with something less infantile.
Yeah, he said "weaking," not "weakening." However, he hasn't said what
he means by that, either.
> > > > > very interesting. I claim that the stregthening happened within Latin
> > > > > first (classical to ecclesiastical) before descent.
>
> > > > Where's your proof of this claim? And what's your explanation for
> > > > Slavic? For German? For Spanish's continued hardening (Latin [w] >
> > > > Romance [v] > Spanish [b/B])?
>
> > No proof? No explanation? No surprise!
>
> > Nathan
>
> Very easy to emulate your argument by assertion and schoolyard
> taunts. But a well-considered reply is going to take time.
And that's the last we're ever going to hear on this topic.
Peter T. Daniels
> No weaseling at all. can't deal with all questions at the same time.
> In fcat, a guy called Toby Griffen claims that Germanic has the
> strongest sounds and his (sadly, single parent) tree looks like
He's a Celticist, actually.
> Germano-european
>
> Germano Armenian Indo European
>
> Germanic Armenian C S
>
> celtic Italic Hellenic etc. Balt-
> Slav Ind-Ir
Where did you get that?
> I'll consider all inputs before coming out with my complete PIE-
> slaying theory.
Why don't you start by inputting the facts and arguments that have
accumulated over the past 200 years?
> You have me confused with traditional hits/comp linguists - they are
> the ones with the single-parent infantile obsession.
When you come up with something that explains the facts better, let us
know. But first you need to master the facts.
> As far as the exceptions to my law are concerned, I am sure Verners
> and Saussures to my Grimm will eventually show up.
When you enunciate a principle as clearly as Grimm did, that has
principled exceptions, I'm sure they will.
But you haven't remotely got an idea about how to go about discovering
a "law."
Peter T. Daniels
> As long as stregthening transformations are still happening, it is
Ok, so now there's a "strengthening" to put alongside "weaking." What
does "strengthening" mean?
> still the same language. At the time of "speciation" to use hist/comp
> ling's horrific term (when the center ceases to hold, to use a
What historical or computational linguist uses the term "speciation"?
(Given that "species" is meaningless wrt language.)
> civilized version)- there is a mass of reductive transformations that
> render the descendants no longer mutually intelligible.-
Is "reductive" the same as or different from "weaking"? What does it
mean?
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 5:04 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 1:35 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > English has 2 v's - fricative (like German w) and approximant (like
> > > Portuguese v) both of which are used in the word "velvet".
> > ???????????????
>
> > Maybe in India.
>
> In Anglos' English, an initial v is often fricative:
When is any v ever not fricative?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fricative_consonant
> # [v] voiced labiodental fricative, as in English vine
> In Anglos' English, an intervocalic* v is often approximant like in a
> British Shakesperian actor's pronunciation of "evil".
What "British Shakespearean actor"?
> * vocalized liquids counting as vowels too.
>
> > Like the "Help" person who kept asking me if I had a virus, but it
> > turned out she was asking if I had wireless.
>
> That would probably have started with a labiodental approximant; at
> any rate, it doesn't have as much friction as an Anglo's pronunciation
> of "vine".
It's really a shame that those Bangalorians who claim to have English
Christian names can't learn to pronounce English so that native
speakers of English can understand them. (I've finally taken to saying
to them, "Your name is _not_ George, and my Verizon service was
interrupted this morning ....")
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 23, 11:28 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 11:14 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7594ee27-70ab-4020-9642-ab469a8a9...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Dec 23, 12:04 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > > > > Wait wait wait... if epenthesis is weakening, and deletion is the
> > > > > opposite of epenthesis, then deletion must *strengthening*.
>
> > > > > You think it's *stronger* (i.e., *non-reductive*) to *eliminate*
> > > > > sounds?
>
> > > > > Your illogic knows now bounds!
>
> > > > elm - ellum
> > > > I might take that road - Oi moight tayke that rowd
> > > > Christmas - Kalikimaka
>
> > > > The direction of weaking is clear - it does not depend on the quantity
> > > > of sounds.
>
> > > You have a broken definition of "weakening".
>
> > and you sound like a broken record with the "broken definition".
>
> > > You really should get
> > > your money back from your ESL teachers.
>
> > Even Daniels can come up with something less infantile.
>
> Yeah, he said "weaking," not "weakening." However, he hasn't said what
> he means by that, either.
Apparently Daniels could not resist a Pavlovian response to the
constant whipping he has been receiving and desperately seizes on a
typo.
>
> > > > > > very interesting. I claim that the stregthening happened within Latin
> > > > > > first (classical to ecclesiastical) before descent.
>
> > > > > Where's your proof of this claim? And what's your explanation for
> > > > > Slavic? For German? For Spanish's continued hardening (Latin [w] >
> > > > > Romance [v] > Spanish [b/B])?
>
> > > No proof? No explanation? No surprise!
>
> > > Nathan
>
> > Very easy to emulate your argument by assertion and schoolyard
> > taunts. But a well-considered reply is going to take time.
>
> And that's the last we're ever going to hear on this topic.- Hide quoted text -
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 23, 12:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > In Anglos' English, an initial v is often fricative:
> When is any v ever not fricative?
Mostly when it's unstressed, apparently.
vial - fricative
via - approximant
civil - approximant
avuncular - fricative
asseverate - approximant
severity - fricative
> > In Anglos' English, an intervocalic* v is often approximant
> What "British Shakespearean actor"?
Listen to a recording of John Gielgud.
> It's really a shame that those Bangalorians who claim to have English
> Christian names can't learn to pronounce English so that native
> speakers of English can understand them. (I've finally taken to saying
> to them, "Your name is _not_ George, and my Verizon service was
> interrupted this morning ....")
I know Indians named George who can't pronounce English such that
Anglos can't understand them.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 23, 12:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > In Anglos' English, an initial v is often fricative:
> When is any v ever not fricative?
Mostly when it's unstressed, apparently.
vial - fricative
via - approximant
civil - approximant
avuncular - fricative
asseverate - approximant
severity - fricative
> > In Anglos' English, an intervocalic* v is often approximant
> What "British Shakespearean actor"?
Listen to a recording of John Gielgud.
> It's really a shame that those Bangalorians who claim to have English
> Christian names can't learn to pronounce English so that native
> speakers of English can understand them. (I've finally taken to saying
> to them, "Your name is _not_ George, and my Verizon service was
> interrupted this morning ....")
I know Indians named George who can't pronounce English such that
Anglos can understand them.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
And you're weaseling on the one you are attempting to deal with.
> In fcat, a guy called Toby Griffen claims that Germanic has the
> strongest sounds and his (sadly, single parent) tree looks like
>
> Germano-european
>
> Germano Armenian Indo European
>
> Germanic Armenian C S
>
> celtic Italic Hellenic etc. Balt-
> Slav Ind-Ir
What's fcat? And what's the relevance of this?
> I'll consider all inputs before coming out with my complete PIE-
> slaying theory.
>
>
>
> > No response? Ah, too busy weaseling on the other one. But this one is
> > equally fatal to your claim that all sound changes are reductive.
>
> > > I asked for a w to v change during descent.
>
> > > If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> > > (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent)
>
> > Well, you will (conveniently) have to be the judge of that, since
> > "descent" is your notion.
>
> And of course so is the idea that w > v took
>
> > place in Ecclesiastical Latin. Does this entail that French and
> > Spanish are derived from Ecclesiastical Latin?
>
> You have me confused with traditional hits/comp linguists - they are
> the ones with the single-parent infantile obsession.
Not an answer.
> As far as the exceptions to my law are concerned, I am sure Verners
> and Saussures to my Grimm will eventually show up.
"Your law" seems to be to declare absolute what others had stated
merely as a tendency. Thus it is up to _you_ to explain the
exceptions. So far you have not done so.
> > And anyhow, if the Catholic Church can make sound changes which are
> > not permitted to ordinary folk, wouldn't the priests of the Vedic
> > religion have been able to do the same?
No response?
Ross Clark
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 23, 10:58 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > As long as stregthening transformations are still happening, it is
>
> Ok, so now there's a "strengthening" to put alongside "weaking." What
> does "strengthening" mean?
>
> > still the same language. At the time of "speciation" to use hist/comp
> > ling's horrific term (when the center ceases to hold, to use a
>
> What historical or computational linguist uses the term "speciation"?
Your pal Mufwene for one.
> (Given that "species" is meaningless wrt language.)
>
> > civilized version)- there is a mass of reductive transformations that
> > render the descendants no longer mutually intelligible.-
>
> Is "reductive" the same as or different from "weaking"? What does it
> mean?
You must by far be the expert on "weaking" since you have used the
word the most.
I am using all other terms in their everyday sense.
anal...@hotmail.com
You can call it what you want - I'll set my own research priorities.
>
> > In fcat, a guy called Toby Griffen claims that Germanic has the
> > strongest sounds and his (sadly, single parent) tree looks like
>
> > Germano-european
>
> > Germano Armenian Indo European
>
> > Germanic Armenian C S
>
> > celtic Italic Hellenic etc. Balt-
> > Slav Ind-Ir
>
> What's fcat?
Florida's Comprehensive Assessment test
Fortran Coverage Analysis Tool
families Can also teach
further child abuse test
Take your pick.
And what's the relevance of this?
It means that using fortition versus lenition to determine the
direction of sound change is something other researchers have looked
at also. I want to dig into what he has to say before answering
piece-meal questions posed here.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'll consider all inputs before coming out with my complete PIE-
> > slaying theory.
>
> > > No response? Ah, too busy weaseling on the other one. But this one is
> > > equally fatal to your claim that all sound changes are reductive.
>
> > > > I asked for a w to v change during descent.
>
> > > > If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> > > > (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent)
>
> > > Well, you will (conveniently) have to be the judge of that, since
> > > "descent" is your notion.
>
> > And of course so is the idea that w > v took
>
> > > place in Ecclesiastical Latin. Does this entail that French and
> > > Spanish are derived from Ecclesiastical Latin?
>
> > You have me confused with traditional hits/comp linguists - they are
> > the ones with the single-parent infantile obsession.
>
> Not an answer.
The burden of proof is on you - you are making a positive assertion -
that "w'" changed to "v" during descent and I showed you another
descent path in which the romance descendants received "v" from a
parent which already had "v".
>
> > As far as the exceptions to my law are concerned, I am sure Verners
> > and Saussures to my Grimm will eventually show up.
>
> "Your law" seems to be to declare absolute what others had stated
> merely as a tendency. Thus it is up to _you_ to explain the
> exceptions. So far you have not done so.
>
> > > And anyhow, if the Catholic Church can make sound changes which are
> > > not permitted to ordinary folk, wouldn't the priests of the Vedic
> > > religion have been able to do the same?
>
> No response?
Its totally irrelevant to what we are discussing here. Why would the
Vedic priests make sound changes when the earliest attested sounds of
Sanskrit were mostly strong forms to start with?
>
> Ross Clark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
benl...@ihug.co.nz
If you'll think back a little, it was "other researchers" (people on
this news group) who introduced you to the whole idea a couple of
weeks ago. The "piece meal questions" are precisely the stuff you have
to explain before you get your name on a law.
>
> > > I'll consider all inputs before coming out with my complete PIE-
> > > slaying theory.
>
> > > > No response? Ah, too busy weaseling on the other one. But this one is
> > > > equally fatal to your claim that all sound changes are reductive.
>
> > > > > I asked for a w to v change during descent.
>
> > > > > If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> > > > > (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent)
>
> > > > Well, you will (conveniently) have to be the judge of that, since
> > > > "descent" is your notion.
>
> > > And of course so is the idea that w > v took
>
> > > > place in Ecclesiastical Latin. Does this entail that French and
> > > > Spanish are derived from Ecclesiastical Latin?
>
> > > You have me confused with traditional hits/comp linguists - they are
> > > the ones with the single-parent infantile obsession.
>
> > Not an answer.
>
> The burden of proof is on you - you are making a positive assertion -
> that "w'" changed to "v" during descent and I showed you another
> descent path in which the romance descendants received "v" from a
> parent which already had "v".
No, this is just as much a positive assertion -- that w > v in the
church, and then the common people got it from the church. So far you
have presented no evidence for this.
> > > As far as the exceptions to my law are concerned, I am sure Verners
> > > and Saussures to my Grimm will eventually show up.
>
> > "Your law" seems to be to declare absolute what others had stated
> > merely as a tendency. Thus it is up to _you_ to explain the
> > exceptions. So far you have not done so.
>
> > > > And anyhow, if the Catholic Church can make sound changes which are
> > > > not permitted to ordinary folk, wouldn't the priests of the Vedic
> > > > religion have been able to do the same?
>
> > No response?
>
> Its totally irrelevant to what we are discussing here. Why would the
> Vedic priests make sound changes when the earliest attested sounds of
> Sanskrit were mostly strong forms to start with?
Your original claim was that Skt v could not possibly have come from w
since such sound changes are impossible. When confronted with cases in
which w does become v (in Romance) you then argued that this could
only have happened in a "non-descent" context (which for you seems to
mean cultivation of a standard/sacred language by an elite such as a
priesthood), in which apparenty your law doesn't apply. I am asking
why this could not equally well have happened among the Vedic
priesthood prior to the fixing of the Vedas as we have them, in which
we find the "earliest attensted sounds"?
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
> On Dec 23, 1:18 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 10:58 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > As long as stregthening transformations are still happening, it is
>
> > Ok, so now there's a "strengthening" to put alongside "weaking." What
> > does "strengthening" mean?
>
> > > still the same language. At the time of "speciation" to use hist/comp
> > > ling's horrific term (when the center ceases to hold, to use a
>
> > What historical or computational linguist uses the term "speciation"?
>
> Your pal Mufwene for one.
He's neither. He's a sociolinguist.
Where?
> > (Given that "species" is meaningless wrt language.)
>
> > > civilized version)- there is a mass of reductive transformations that
> > > render the descendants no longer mutually intelligible.-
>
> > Is "reductive" the same as or different from "weaking"? What does it
> > mean?
>
> You must by far be the expert on "weaking" since you have used the
> word the most.
>
> I am using all other terms in their everyday sense.
Technical terms in linguistics don't have "everyday senses," and
you've been using words that aren't technical terms in linguistics.
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 10:22 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 12:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > In Anglos' English, an initial v is often fricative:
> > When is any v ever not fricative?
>
> Mostly when it's unstressed, apparently.
What is an unstressed (or stressed) consonant?
> vial - fricative
> via - approximant
> civil - approximant
> avuncular - fricative
> asseverate - approximant
> severity - fricative
Maybe in India. Not where there are native speakers.
> > > In Anglos' English, an intervocalic* v is often approximant
> > What "British Shakespearean actor"?
>
> Listen to a recording of John Gielgud.
Which one? What passage?
> > It's really a shame that those Bangalorians who claim to have English
> > Christian names can't learn to pronounce English so that native
> > speakers of English can understand them. (I've finally taken to saying
> > to them, "Your name is _not_ George, and my Verizon service was
> > interrupted this morning ....")
>
> I know Indians named George who can't pronounce English such that
> Anglos can understand them.
And not one Indian who works for a Help line has an Indian name like
Ranjit or Sanjay or some such?
Peter T. Daniels
Apparently "analyst" is incapable of answering a simple question.
anal...@hotmail.com
to be precise, you offered the breakyhrough corroboration of the
tendency to reductiveness of sound changes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I'll consider all inputs before coming out with my complete PIE-
> > > > slaying theory.
>
> > > > > No response? Ah, too busy weaseling on the other one. But this one is
> > > > > equally fatal to your claim that all sound changes are reductive.
>
> > > > > > I asked for a w to v change during descent.
>
> > > > > > If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> > > > > > (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent)
>
> > > > > Well, you will (conveniently) have to be the judge of that, since
> > > > > "descent" is your notion.
>
> > > > And of course so is the idea that w > v took
>
> > > > > place in Ecclesiastical Latin. Does this entail that French and
> > > > > Spanish are derived from Ecclesiastical Latin?
>
> > > > You have me confused with traditional hits/comp linguists - they are
> > > > the ones with the single-parent infantile obsession.
>
> > > Not an answer.
>
> > The burden of proof is on you - you are making a positive assertion -
> > that "w'" changed to "v" during descent and I showed you another
> > descent path in which the romance descendants received "v" from a
> > parent which already had "v".
>
> No, this is just as much a positive assertion -- that w > v in the
> church, and then the common people got it from the church. So far you
> have presented no evidence for this.
>
This has descended to "did not did too".
>
>
>
>
> > > > As far as the exceptions to my law are concerned, I am sure Verners
> > > > and Saussures to my Grimm will eventually show up.
>
> > > "Your law" seems to be to declare absolute what others had stated
> > > merely as a tendency. Thus it is up to _you_ to explain the
> > > exceptions. So far you have not done so.
>
> > > > > And anyhow, if the Catholic Church can make sound changes which are
> > > > > not permitted to ordinary folk, wouldn't the priests of the Vedic
> > > > > religion have been able to do the same?
>
> > > No response?
>
> > Its totally irrelevant to what we are discussing here. Why would the
> > Vedic priests make sound changes when the earliest attested sounds of
> > Sanskrit were mostly strong forms to start with?
>
> Your original claim was that Skt v could not possibly have come from w
> since such sound changes are impossible. When confronted with cases in
> which w does become v (in Romance) you then argued that this could
> only have happened in a "non-descent" context (which for you seems to
> mean cultivation of a standard/sacred language by an elite such as a
> priesthood), in which apparenty your law doesn't apply. I am asking
> why this could not equally well have happened among the Vedic
> priesthood prior to the fixing of the Vedas as we have them, in which
> we find the "earliest attensted sounds"?
>
very insightful. yes - it could have happened. We'll then have to
look at the entire collection of absolutely stunningly strong forms of
Sanskrit and ask if they could all be the result of internal
fortitions of weak forms inherited from the PIE beast.
If thats the case then the ubiquitous "bhrata-brother" diagrams need
to be modified - they should show the original weak form inherited by
sanskrit followed by the internally fortified form (and similarly for
Greek and Latin when they posess the strongest forms considered
cognate with other allegedly IE languages).
> Ross Clark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
benl...@ihug.co.nz
It's a well known observation about sound change, though doubtless
news to you. My point was that this hardly accounts for your sudden
interest in Griffen's otherwise obscure proposal. I suspect your
interest has to do with the devoicing of stops in Germanic, which
someone else suggested as a strengthening change. Personally, I don't
think voicing belongs on the strength-weakness hierarchy anyway.
> > > > I'll consider all inputs before coming out with my complete
PIE-
> > > > > slaying theory.
>
> > > > > > No response? Ah, too busy weaseling on the other one. But this one is
> > > > > > equally fatal to your claim that all sound changes are reductive.
>
> > > > > > > I asked for a w to v change during descent.
>
> > > > > > > If one looks at your effort above - an example is strikingly absent
> > > > > > > (unless you claim Classical to Ecclesiastical latin is descent)
>
> > > > > > Well, you will (conveniently) have to be the judge of that, since
> > > > > > "descent" is your notion.
>
> > > > > And of course so is the idea that w > v took
>
> > > > > > place in Ecclesiastical Latin. Does this entail that French and
> > > > > > Spanish are derived from Ecclesiastical Latin?
>
> > > > > You have me confused with traditional hits/comp linguists - they are
> > > > > the ones with the single-parent infantile obsession.
>
> > > > Not an answer.
>
> > > The burden of proof is on you - you are making a positive assertion -
> > > that "w'" changed to "v" during descent and I showed you another
> > > descent path in which the romance descendants received "v" from a
> > > parent which already had "v".
>
> > No, this is just as much a positive assertion -- that w > v in the
> > church, and then the common people got it from the church. So far you
> > have presented no evidence for this.
>
> This has descended to "did not did too".
Are you claiming that you did present evidence? The fact is we know
that [v] (and [B] and [b]) are present in ordinary spoken Spanish and
French, deriving from Latin [w]. The simplest hypothesis is that the
change took place in the continuously transmitted language of the
common people. If you want to claim that the priests first changed w
to v, and then the people did so by imitation. you are the one who is
going to have to come up with some evidence.
The "stunning" effect is your religious/cultural bias kicking in
again. The Sanskrit sound system as a whole is no more stunningly
strong than any other.
> If thats the case then the ubiquitous "bhrata-brother" diagrams need
> to be modified - they should show the original weak form inherited by
> sanskrit followed by the internally fortified form (and similarly for
> Greek and Latin when they posess the strongest forms considered
> cognate with other allegedly IE languages).
But the existing theory does show the original weak form (PIE *w)
being fortified to v in Sanskrit. Is your modification going to
consist of a little footnote saying "done by priests"?
I foresee you have a lot of work ahead of you. You should probably
start by working out a coherent statement of what's "weak" and what's
"strong" in sounds (and please!, no more "gravitas"). At the moment it
looks as though you're just making it up on impressions as you go
along.
You'll enjoy what happens in Greek, where the PIE *w completely
disappears (during the time that Greek is evolving into that great
classical language we love). Then the [u] of Classical Greek develops
into Modern Greek [v] or [f] (depending on whether the following
consonant is voiced or voiceless) -- and how if not via [w]? Well,
probably those Orthodox priests...
Ross Clark
anal...@hotmail.com
I think we might have come up with a solomonic solution to the vexing
PIE issue
(1) PIE was present in its weakest form all over Eurasia. No
migrations, invasions etc. are needed - what needs explanation is not
its spread but its lack of spread.
(2) It was bounded by tamil in India, Semitic languages in West Asia,
Ancient Chinese in China etc.
(3) Sanskrit, Greek and Latin resulted by the internal fortition of
protosanskrit protogreek and protoLatin respectively with adstratum
effects that were unique to each and with mutual borrowing through
contact
(4) In this model, I really don't care how germanic came about.
Is this consistent with traditional hist/comp ling?
I can see myself making peace with this model - can't answer for other
Indians offended by the perceived profanation of Sanskrit by existing
PIE theories.
I think the preternatural power of Sanskrit purely as sounds and words
is real and objective and not merely cultural - but that plays no part
in the theory above.
Don't forget that Sanskrit is often portrayed as an enemy of my other
great love - Tamil (and I readily concede the gravitas (sorry, I
actually mean it) of Greek and Latin and the all-encompassing power,
reach and incisiveness of present day English) - and yet I am able to
see the power inherent in the merest sounds of Sanskrit.
> > If thats the case then the ubiquitous "bhrata-brother" diagrams need
> > to be modified - they should show the original weak form inherited by
> > sanskrit followed by the internally fortified form (and similarly for
> > Greek and Latin when they posess the strongest forms considered
> > cognate with other allegedly IE languages).
>
> But the existing theory does show the original weak form (PIE *w)
> being fortified to v in Sanskrit. Is your modification going to
> consist of a little footnote saying "done by priests"?
>
> I foresee you have a lot of work ahead of you. You should probably
> start by working out a coherent statement of what's "weak" and what's
> "strong" in sounds (and please!, no more "gravitas"). At the moment it
> looks as though you're just making it up on impressions as you go
> along.
>
> You'll enjoy what happens in Greek, where the PIE *w completely
> disappears (during the time that Greek is evolving into that great
> classical language we love). Then the [u] of Classical Greek develops
> into Modern Greek [v] or [f] (depending on whether the following
> consonant is voiced or voiceless) -- and how if not via [w]? Well,
> probably those Orthodox priests...
>
> Ross Clark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Harlan Messinger
>
> elm - ellum
>
> I might take that road - Oi moight tayke that rowd
>
> Christmas - Kalikimaka
>
> The direction of weaking is clear - it does not depend on the quantity
> of sounds.
In other words, it's whatever you say it is. Or it's whatever happens
when sounds change--you invent the pejorative term "weakening" and then
define it and "sound change" in terms of each other--which makes it a
useless term.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-B8BABD.10345223122007@[89.0.209.64.dynamic.barak-online.net]>
in alt.lang,sci.lang:
> In article <i3aifpg2w2qg.18qzlw2sgquyp$.d...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:04:35 -0500, Nathan Sanders
>> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
>> <news:nsanders-DC63A2.00043523122007@[89.0.209.64.dynamic.barak-online.net]>
>> in alt.lang,sci.lang:
>> [...]
>>> For Spanish's continued hardening (Latin [w] > Romance
>>> [v] > Spanish [b/B])?
>> Isn't that Latin [w] > Late Latin [B], developing variously
>> to [v], [B], and [b] in the Romance dialects?
> Perhaps. Do we know for sure (I don't) that it was [B]
> and not [v] in Late Latin?
It's the received view, and the evidence looks pretty good.
For instance, Latin <Nerva> appears in Greek as <Nérbas> and
<Nérouas> in (I think) the 1st century CE. At Pompeii
<veni> appears as <beni> and <valeat> as <baleat>. By the
2nd century CE the reflexes of Classical Latin <v> /w/ and
<b> /b/ were regularly confused in writing, e.g., <vibe> for
<vive>, <iuvente> for <iubente>. (And it seems a rather
more natural path, to boot.)
Brian
benl...@ihug.co.nz
>
> I think we might have come up with a solomonic solution to the vexing
> PIE issue
Remember that the "solomonic solution" was never implemented. It was
merely a device to find out which of the two parties was lying.
>
> (1) PIE was present in its weakest form all over Eurasia. No
> migrations, invasions etc. are needed - what needs explanation is not
> its spread but its lack of spread.
>
> (2) It was bounded by tamil in India, Semitic languages in West Asia,
> Ancient Chinese in China etc.
>
> (3) Sanskrit, Greek and Latin resulted by the internal fortition of
> protosanskrit protogreek and protoLatin respectively with adstratum
> effects that were unique to each and with mutual borrowing through
> contact
>
> (4) In this model, I really don't care how germanic came about.
>
> Is this consistent with traditional hist/comp ling?
Traditional hist/comp ling would want to know how a single language
got to be spoken over a continental-sized area without migrations,
invasions, etc.
And it would insist that you care about Germanic.
As for (3), it might be made consistent if you defined your terms
suitably. Also, if I might belatedly make this point, if you are going
to make, e.g. borrowing from Sanskrit into Latin a part of your
theory, you are going to have to provide some historical/geographical
plausibility for such a scenario. Otherwise you are just creating an
"Indian Invasion Theory" for which evidence is lacking.
Ross Clark
>
> I can see myself making peace with this model - can't answer for other
> Indians offended by the perceived profanation of Sanskrit by existing
> PIE theories.
>
> I think the preternatural power of Sanskrit purely as sounds and words
> is real and objective and not merely cultural - but that plays no part
> in the theory above.
>
> Don't forget that Sanskrit is often portrayed as an enemy of my other
> great love - Tamil (and I readily concede the gravitas (sorry, I
> actually mean it) of Greek and Latin and the all-encompassing power,
> reach and incisiveness of present day English) - and yet I am able to
> see the power inherent in the merest sounds of Sanskrit.
>
>
>
> > > If thats the case then the ubiquitous "bhrata-brother" diagrams need
> > > to be modified - they should show the original weak form inherited by
> > > sanskrit followed by the internally fortified form (and similarly for
> > > Greek and Latin when they posess the strongest forms considered
> > > cognate with other allegedly IE languages).
>
> > But the existing theory does show the original weak form (PIE *w)
> > being fortified to v in Sanskrit. Is your
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
anal...@hotmail.com
Thats mostly a "yes" to me :-)
Can't think of a nicer (secular) X-Mas present.
Thank you for the insights that have more than made up for the pokes-
in-the-eye (good -humored, I hope).
My researches will continue, but without the chip on the shoulder.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 23, 2:52 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 10:22 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23, 12:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > In Anglos' English, an initial v is often fricative:
> > > When is any v ever not fricative?
>
> > Mostly when it's unstressed, apparently.
>
> What is an unstressed (or stressed) consonant?
In an unstressed syllable, especially one without primary stress.
> > vial - fricative
> > via - approximant
> > civil - approximant
> > avuncular - fricative
> > asseverate - approximant
> > severity - fricative
>
> Maybe in India.
In India, the first two would have either fricatives or approximants
and the rest would have approximants.
> Not where there are native speakers.
Approximants in
Edward Fox saying "living rock" in "Force 10 from Navarone".
The typical British pronunciation of David Niven's surname.
> > > > In Anglos' English, an intervocalic* v is often approximant
> > > What "British Shakespearean actor"?
> > Listen to a recording of John Gielgud.
> Which one? What passage?
But not to tell of good or evil luck, - Sonnet 14
I don't remember whether the recording I listened to was by him but
there are recordings of his rendition of the sonnets.
> > > It's really a shame that those Bangalorians who claim to have English
> > > Christian names can't learn to pronounce English so that native
> > > speakers of English can understand them. (I've finally taken to saying
> > > to them, "Your name is _not_ George, and my Verizon service was
> > > interrupted this morning ....")
>
> > I know Indians named George who can't pronounce English such that
> > Anglos can understand them.
>
> And not one Indian who works for a Help line has an Indian name like
> Ranjit or Sanjay or some such?
Most of them have Indian names that they don't use on Help lines. One
named George would, however, probably not assume another name.