How boilerplate PIE cheats to maintain itself

[anal...@hotmail.com]

Latin vacca "cow" is a MIA type corruption of Sanskrit वक्षस्
[Vakshas] "Ox" a variant of उक्षन् [Ukshan] or वत्स [vatsa] "calf"
probably from "yearling". Instead it is made cognate with वशा [vashA]
"cow" (although there is no trigger for the "palatalization".)

And even that doesn't work always - from the cognate set

gharma thermos formus "hot" - which are the "Kentum" and which the
"Satem" forms?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 17, 4:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Latin vacca "cow" is a MIA type corruption of Sanskrit वक्षस्
> [Vakshas] "Ox" a variant of उक्षन् [Ukshan] or वत्स  [vatsa]  "calf"
> probably from "yearling".  Instead it is made cognate with वशा [vashA]
> "cow" (although there is no trigger for the "palatalization".)

What trigger would you expect?

>
> And even that doesn't work always - from the cognate set
>
> gharma thermos formus "hot" - which are the "Kentum" and which the
> "Satem" forms?

Amazing, but true -- the more you know, the less you understand.

You'll be able to talk about "cheating" if and when you ever learn
what the rules are.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

Heck - my post at least breaks the monotonous and cringe-making dick-
comparison by PTD and Arnaud.

Why don't you say something instead of infantile baiting?

The dictionary says that there are 635 synonyms for "cow" in
Sanskrit. So there is a little problem of which one to chose to form
cognate sets and the 'cheating' I am alleging by boilerplatists is
that they pick the one that they think fits the established sound-
algebra scheme.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le dimanche 17 février 2013 16:21:51 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 16, 5:22 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 4:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Latin vacca "cow" is a MIA type corruption of Sanskrit वक्षस्
>
> > > [Vakshas] "Ox" a variant of उक्षन् [Ukshan] or वत्स  [vatsa]  "calf"
>
> > > probably from "yearling".  Instead it is made cognate with वशा [vashA]
>
> > > "cow" (although there is no trigger for the "palatalization".)
>
> >
>
> > What trigger would you expect?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > And even that doesn't work always - from the cognate set
>
> >
>
> > > gharma thermos formus "hot" - which are the "Kentum" and which the
>
> > > "Satem" forms?
>
> >
>
> > Amazing, but true -- the more you know, the less you understand.
>
> >
>
> > You'll be able to talk about "cheating" if and when you ever learn
>
> > what the rules are.
>
>
>
> Heck - my post at least breaks the monotonous and cringe-making dick-
>
> comparison by PTD and Arnaud.
>

***

I claim victory by KO.

A.
***

>
>
> Why don't you say something instead of infantile baiting?
>
>
>
> The dictionary says that there are 635 synonyms for "cow" in
>
> Sanskrit. So there is a little problem of which one to chose to form
>
> cognate sets and the 'cheating' I am alleging by boilerplatists is
>
> that they pick the one that they think fits the established sound-
>
> algebra scheme.

***

Where's the "cheating" if the form is the only one that works?

You're inverting true and false.

A.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 18, 4:21 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 16, 5:22 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 17, 4:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Latin vacca "cow" is a MIA type corruption of Sanskrit वक्षस्
> > > [Vakshas] "Ox" a variant of उक्षन् [Ukshan] or वत्स  [vatsa]  "calf"
> > > probably from "yearling".  Instead it is made cognate with वशा [vashA]
> > > "cow" (although there is no trigger for the "palatalization".)
>
> > What trigger would you expect?
>
> > > And even that doesn't work always - from the cognate set
>
> > > gharma thermos formus "hot" - which are the "Kentum" and which the
> > > "Satem" forms?
>
> > Amazing, but true -- the more you know, the less you understand.
>
> > You'll be able to talk about "cheating" if and when you ever learn
> > what the rules are.
>
> Heck - my post at least breaks the monotonous and cringe-making dick-
> comparison by PTD and Arnaud.
>
> Why don't you say something instead of infantile baiting?

Nice example of reflexivity or recursion or something -- your
reference to "infantile baiting" could well be described as infantile
baiting.

> The dictionary says that there are 635 synonyms for "cow" in
> Sanskrit.  So there is a little problem of which one to chose to form
> cognate sets and the 'cheating' I am alleging by boilerplatists is
> that they pick the one that they think fits the established sound-
> algebra scheme.

Which violates what rule? What would you suggest as "fair play" --
picking one at random? No, I don't imagine you're really that stupid
-- you've just descended into pure trolling again.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 17, 2:26 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:21 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>

> -- you've just descended into pure trolling again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I like to call it advancing the subaltern viewepoint.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 18, 11:55 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

You call that a viewpoint?

[pauljk]

<benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:961b8b3d-94f1-4bc0...@ou9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

He says it's his view ePoint.

ePoints is a universal currency designed to keep big brands
loyal to their customers, rather than the other way around.

pjk

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 17, 5:55 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Apparently not so subaltern after all.

Take a gander at (I wonder if one can get more establishment than
Winfred Philipp Lehmann) Lehmann's "Pre Indo European" that claims
that "vacca" is a late formation ( page 232) I wonder if Arabic
"Baqar" played a role here.

So to look up 'vashA' among 600 odd synonyms is pure dishonesty
(dictionary -based comp ling which as we speak is going over to
computers) - purely because it fits the sound algebra rules that were
set in the 19th century.

Now that the mightiest of mighty "asterisk words" *Hek'wos has fallen
- one should take the claims of biolerplate not with a pinch but a
ton of salt.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 18, 9:14 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:55 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:26 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 4:21 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > -- you've just descended into pure trolling again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I like to call it advancing the subaltern viewepoint.
>
> Apparently not so subaltern after all.
>
> Take a gander at (I wonder if one can get more establishment than
> Winfred Philipp Lehmann)

You really do love to flaunt your ignorance, don't you!

Lehmann held views of the history of Indo-European that were at odds
with those of virtually all his colleagues. His 1993 Theoretical Bases
of Indo-European Linguistics (Routledge) -- "an IE manual without the
data" -- is an excellent history of the field, and he generally does
indicate where he deviates from the usual understandings.

> Lehmann's "Pre Indo European" that claims
> that "vacca" is a late formation ( page 232)  I wonder if Arabic
> "Baqar" played a role here.
>
> So to look up 'vashA' among 600 odd synonyms is pure dishonesty
> (dictionary -based comp ling which as we speak is going over to
> computers) - purely because it fits the sound algebra rules that were
> set in the 19th century.

Would you like it better if the sound correspondences had been
discovered in the 18th century, or in the 20th?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 19, 3:14 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:55 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:26 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 4:21 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > -- you've just descended into pure trolling again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I like to call it advancing the subaltern viewepoint.
>
> Apparently not so subaltern after all.
>
> Take a gander at (I wonder if one can get more establishment than
> Winfred Philipp Lehmann) Lehmann's "Pre Indo European" that claims
> that "vacca" is a late formation ( page 232)

Ah. So your "point of view" was merely to reject vacca = vashA, and
any different view will be recorded as a victory for the "subaltern"
side?

I wonder if Arabic
> "Baqar" played a role here.

Who knows? Wanderworter are not unknown among the common domesticates.

> So to look up 'vashA' among 600 odd synonyms is pure dishonesty
> (dictionary -based comp ling which as we speak is going over to
> computers) -

...according to the pop-science press, which of course is where you
get your opinions...

purely because it fits the sound algebra rules that were
> set in the 19th century.

I don't know what the date of their setting has to do with anything,
but your allegations of "cheating" and "dishonesty" are based entirely
in ignorance.

> Now that the mightiest of mighty "asterisk words" *Hek'wos has fallen
> - one should take the claims of biolerplate not with a pinch but a
> ton of salt.

And as we found out with "rex", your ideas about which reconstructions
are mighty, crucial, foundational etc. seem to be made up to fit your
excitement of the moment.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

> excitement of the moment.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I have to explain
something here. I thought I found a cockroach in the boilerplate
kitchen (as if a hypochoristic like "vacca" could be on an equal
footing with Sanskrit sources going back to the RV) and it looks like
I did based on a pretty solid boilerplate source.

Any number of sources list this false cognacy and they are not addiing
to boilerplate scholarship's reputation. That remains the only issue
to address and infantile ad homina have no place.

And you might want to brush up on your PoMo - subaltern viewpoints
(for now) in hist ling would be things like OIT.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<10907d86-7ed9-4fd3...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

And you might want to learn the meaning of "boilerplate". It refers
to text (usually in a legal context for contracts and other similar
agreements), not to the principles of scientific methodology.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 19, 10:35 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

No, I've long since given up hope of rational explanations from you.

 I thought I found a cockroach in the boilerplate
> kitchen (as if a hypochoristic  like "vacca" could be on an equal
> footing with Sanskrit sources going back to the RV) and it looks like
> I did based on a pretty solid boilerplate source.

Thanks for keeping us posted on how things look to you.

> Any number of sources list this false cognacy and they are not addiing
> to boilerplate scholarship's reputation.  That remains the only issue
> to address and infantile ad homina have no place.

Nor do infantile cockroach-hunts.

> And you might want to brush up on your PoMo - subaltern viewpoints
> (for now) in hist ling would be things like OIT.

I'm quite aware of that, thanks. It's a cozy term for people who like
to identify their ideas as the Voice of the Oppressed. Unfortunately,
as I pointed out, in your case there's not even a coherent viewpoint
there.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

> there.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You obviously don't set much store by the body of alleged "PIE"
scholarship thats out there - since this blot on it doesn't seem to
bother you one bit. This is not a "most people said - he-said- he
said" debate like the "brown one" versus "furry one" versus "wild
one" over the origin of "bear" about which scholarly opinion can
differ. This is shoddy scholarship - amateurishness of the kind
usually alleged against OIT theorists.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 19, 2:32 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

Well, no, it's not. But since you've passed up the opportunity to
support your other derogatory judgements ("cheating", "dishonesty"),
you probably won't be about to justify "shoddy scholarship" either.

A better response from me might have been: "No, dear, that's not a
cockroach. No, it's not a 'blot', either. And please don't put it in
your mouth. Can't you find somewhere else to play?"

[anal...@hotmail.com]

Since there has practically been nothing to do with linguistics in any
of your responses (the ad hominems have kept getting slimier and
slimier though) you have not established standing to claim what I
supported or did not support.

>
> A better response from me might have been: "No, dear, that's not a
> cockroach. No, it's not a 'blot', either. And please don't put it in

> your mouth. Can't you find somewhere else to play?"- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I guess this particular bit of sliminess was a bit too much and so
you put it out there hypothetically.

Lighten up - don't drop the veneer of civilization over bits and bytes
coming over the 'net.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 19, 4:06 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

No such standing required. Nothing you have said can be seen as even
an attempt to support your allegations.

I even asked you directly what rules you thought were violated by the
"cheating". No answer from you.

> > A better response from me might have been: "No, dear, that's not a
> > cockroach. No, it's not a 'blot', either. And please don't put it in
> > your mouth. Can't you find somewhere else to play?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I guess this particular bit of sliminess was a bit  too much and so
> you put it out there hypothetically.
>
> Lighten up - don't drop the veneer of civilization over bits and bytes
> coming over the 'net.

Generally my tone reflects what I'm replying to. "Ad hominems"? Not
really -- I don't know anything about you apart from what you've
posted here. "Sliminess"? Puh-leeze, Mr Genocide!

When I read genuine questions, serious hypotheses, or even criticism
which rises above the level of mere dung-flinging, I'm quite capable
of being polite.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 18 février 2013 15:14:42 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 17, 5:55 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:26 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Feb 18, 4:21 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > -- you've just descended into pure trolling again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >
>
> > I like to call it advancing the subaltern viewepoint.
>
>
>
> Apparently not so subaltern after all.
>
>
>
> Take a gander at (I wonder if one can get more establishment than
>
> Winfred Philipp Lehmann)

***

He's not really mainstream.

A.
***

Lehmann's "Pre Indo European" that claims
>
> that "vacca" is a late formation ( page 232)

***

In my opinion vacca is related to *ud-k-, *ukT- "ox"
with a kind of babytalk deformation.

A.
***

I wonder if Arabic
>
> "Baqar" played a role here.

***

Semitic *baquar is possibly related to PIE *pekw "cattle, sheep"

A.
***

>
>
>
> So to look up 'vashA' among 600 odd synonyms is pure dishonesty
>
> (dictionary -based comp ling which as we speak is going over to
>
> computers) - purely because it fits the sound algebra rules that were
>
> set in the 19th century.
>

***

I can't see where the dishonesty is.
If words don't fit, they just don't fit. Period.

A.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 18, 10:37 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>

> of being polite.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Still no limguistics - but thanks at least for admitting that you have
been posting like a street-urchin in thsi thread.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 19, 10:36 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

Like I say, I accommodate to the company I'm in.
So I take it we're not going to get any serious linguistics from you?

[anal...@hotmail.com]

> A.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No thats the whole point - if all you know is Brugmann's final
synthesis of what was known at his time and you were making a table of
cognates - vacca and vashA look like a textbook case (Latin velar <>
Skt palatal/sibilant). But since 'vacca' is a nursery word any
cognate in other iE languages can exist only for its internal ancestor
in Latin (and it may not even be word of IE origin).

[Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski]

On Feb 18, 4:14 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Now that the mightiest of mighty "asterisk words" *Hek'wos has fallen
> - one should take the claims of biolerplate not with a pinch but a
> ton of salt.

Not being a historical linguist, I don't know what Analyst refers to
when he says that "*Hek'wos" "has fallen", but I guess I understand
the method of his lunacy a little better. Of course "asterisk words"
are not "mighty", they are theories and hypotheses which are
constantly revised and updated when our understanding of ancient Indo-
European changes. This is science. However, Analyst sees such
scientific progress as indicative of breakdown of what he calls
"boilerplate PIE". He thinks of "boilerplate PIE" as something
historical linguists have devised as a competitor to Sanskrit.
Sanskrit is, as we know, a historically recorded dead language with a
standard grammar and as such quite unchangeable, and he thinks PIE
should be similarly unchangeable if it is to compete successfully with
Sanskrit.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

Got it. Keeping PTD company after his cameo appearance spouting the
expected irrelevancies (Although his ad hominem was direct and
unvarnished as opposed to some serious slime from you).

> So I take it we're not going to get any serious linguistics from you?- Hide quoted text -

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 19, 10:50 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

Gosh, I really should learn a lesson from Arnaud. He got some actual
linguistic elaboration from you, and I didn't. Guess it's because he's
so polite.

Anyhow, thanks for trying, but I still can't see where the "cheating"
or the "dishonesty" or the "shoddy scholarship" come in -- even
assuming I have made the right sense out of your last sentence.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 19 février 2013 10:50:36 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 3:17 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>

>
> > I can't see where the dishonesty is.
>
> > If words don't fit, they just don't fit. Period.
>

>

> No thats the whole point - if all you know is Brugmann's final
>
> synthesis of what was known at his time and you were making a table of
>
> cognates - vacca and vashA look like a textbook case (Latin velar <>
>
> Skt palatal/sibilant).

***

No, they are not a textbook case.

Latin vacca is an odd word, with main vowel a and geminate cc.
so it is clear from the start that such a word as vacca is going to raise issues.

A.
***

But since 'vacca' is a nursery word any
>
> cognate in other iE languages can exist only for its internal ancestor
>
> in Latin (and it may not even be word of IE origin).

***

So, what's your point?

If you think something's wrong with PIE methodologies or reconstructions, take issue with words that are supposed to work, but you think they don't.

It's off the mark to raise issues with vacca, as anybody with a modicum of knowledge will tell you this word is not a good candidate for cognacy, because its phonetics is irregular.

You won't refute a theory using words that this theory precisely tells you they are bad and don't work. This is just absurd.
These words are bad and the theory is correct to inform you they are bad.

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

What does "boiler plate PIE" mean for native speakers?

I can't put a sensical meaning on that phrase.

A.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

I wouldn't quarrel with one word you have written. My only gripe is
that even supposedly authoritative sources such as Tower of Babel show
these as cognates. They even have a star word *wak' for it. That
could only have resulted from mechanically searching for cognates
based on naive sound rules (what I call "boilerplate").

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

ok,
but not everything that's on Tower of Babel is to be taken as blessed bread.
Pokorny for example did not have that,
it's something the Russians have added on their own, and I would not buy it.

A.
***

That
>
> could only have resulted from mechanically searching for cognates
>
> based on naive sound rules (what I call "boilerplate").

***

And what is a non-naive sound rule?

A.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

and -r is a Semitic ending found in animal names, particularly
familiar ones. where does the labialization of of /q/ reconstruct,
based on purely internal Semitic evidence.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 19, 3:17 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Semitic *baquar is possibly related to PIE *pekw "cattle, sheep"

?? There are no labiovelars in Proto-Semitic.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 19, 5:29 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> What does "boiler plate PIE" mean for native speakers?
>
> I can't put a sensical meaning on that phrase.

"Boilerplate" is a slang term for the slabs of prose that are riveted
into any routine legal contract dealing with a specific subject. They
are standard wordings whose meanings were arrived at in the courts
over generations so their interpretation is fully understood and
uncontroversial -- a less slang term is "fine print." They tend to
have long concatenations of substantives intended to cover every
contingency that has ever arisen and been disputed and been decided.

Of course it might mean something entirely different in India.

Note that he or she has begun using "subaltern," which is indeed a
specifically Indian-English word that has something to do with
subordinate status, perhaps in a bureaucracy. It has no connotations
in US English and probably few connotations in UK English for anyone
under 100 years old.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 19 février 2013 13:05:38 UTC+1, Yusuf B Gursey a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 3:17 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>
> > Semitic *baquar is possibly related to PIE *pekw "cattle, sheep"
>
> >
>
>
>
> and -r is a Semitic ending found in animal names, particularly
>
> familiar ones. where does the labialization of of /q/ reconstruct,
>
> based on purely internal Semitic evidence.

***

I've come to think that Semitic *q corresponds to PIE *kw, *g(h)w and k?

There's no trace of labialization in Semitic.

This certainly needs more data and more comparanda. I agree with this objection.

A.
***

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

yes, on the surface on it.

A.
***

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 19 février 2013 14:41:37 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 5:29 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What does "boiler plate PIE" mean for native speakers?
>
> >
>
> > I can't put a sensical meaning on that phrase.
>
>
>
> "Boilerplate" is a slang term for the slabs of prose that are riveted
>
> into any routine legal contract dealing with a specific subject. They
>
> are standard wordings whose meanings were arrived at in the courts
>
> over generations so their interpretation is fully understood and
>
> uncontroversial -- a less slang term is "fine print." They tend to
>
> have long concatenations of substantives intended to cover every
>
> contingency that has ever arisen and been disputed and been decided.
>
>
>
> Of course it might mean something entirely different in India.
>

***

Thanks,

but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.

A.
***

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 19, 10:21 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le mardi 19 février 2013 14:41:37 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 5:29 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > What does "boiler plate PIE" mean for native speakers?
>
> > > I can't put a sensical meaning on that phrase.
>
> > "Boilerplate" is a slang term for the slabs of prose that are riveted
> > into any routine legal contract dealing with a specific subject. They
> > are standard wordings whose meanings were arrived at in the courts
> > over generations so their interpretation is fully understood and
> > uncontroversial -- a less slang term is "fine print." They tend to
> > have long concatenations of substantives intended to cover every
> > contingency that has ever arisen and been disputed and been decided.
> > Of course it might mean something entirely different in India.
>
> ***
>
> Thanks,
>
> but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.

Can you understand _anything_ analyst41 says?

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 19 février 2013 17:26:28 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 10:21 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>

>
> > but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.
>
>
>
> Can you understand _anything_ analyst41 says?
>

***

I understand analyst41 is trying to describe IE studies in disparaging and derogatory words, but so far, "boilerplate PIE" makes little sense to me.

A.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

"Boilerplate" originally referred to large pieces of rolled steel
which were put together to make boilers. Metaphorically, as Peter
explained, it was used for lengthy passages of fixed language which
were used in legal documents etc. analyst41's use of the term is meant
to suggest that IEists roll off rote-learned etymologies and arguments
without much thought.

His use of "subaltern", by the way, is a direct allusion to "subaltern
studies", a PoMo discipline which purports to re-think history (etc.)
from the point of view of former colonial subjects. Leading lights in
this field are the Indian scholars Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (whom
analyst41 quoted in one of his first posts here) and Homi Bhabha. They
in turn may have picked up the term from Antonio Gramsci.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <ce928d39-783e-446f...@googlegroups.com>,

Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.

Analyst seems to intend "boilerplate" to mean "arrived at by means of
generally accepted methodology", but with a negative connotation along
the lines of "people who are doing the general accepting do so
blindly, rather than because they understand the underlying methods".

(Note that analyst himself doesn't understand the underlying methods,
which probably accounts for his assumption that no one else does,
either.)

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:51:10 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-306945...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:

> In article <ce928d39-783e-446f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>> but this explanation still does not explain what
>> "boilerplate PIE" might mean.

> Analyst seems to intend "boilerplate" to mean "arrived at
> by means of generally accepted methodology", but with a
> negative connotation along the lines of "people who are
> doing the general accepting do so blindly, rather than
> because they understand the underlying methods".

> (Note that analyst himself doesn't understand the
> underlying methods, which probably accounts for his
> assumption that no one else does, either.)

Only partly, I think; he also can't afford to believe that
others understand them.

(By the way, did you get my e-mail the other day?)

Brian

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <x9o02yfvepz5.15...@40tude.net>,

Yes, I did. Monday and Tuesday are busy days for me, so I haven't had
a chance to respond yet, but I'll do that now.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 19 février 2013 20:51:10 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <ce928d39-783e-446f...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.
>
>
>
> Analyst seems to intend "boilerplate" to mean "arrived at by means of
>
> generally accepted methodology", but with a negative connotation along
>
> the lines of "people who are doing the general accepting do so
>
> blindly, rather than because they understand the underlying methods".
>
>
>
> (Note that analyst himself doesn't understand the underlying methods,
>
> which probably accounts for his assumption that no one else does,
>
> either.)
>

****

Thanks for all answers,

it's possible that this phrase makes little sense to me, because it's inadequate in the first place.
I understand it suggests that PIE is a kind of copy-and-paste rote abstruse theory, which it normally is not.

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 19 février 2013 21:28:16 UTC+1, Brian M. Scott a écrit :
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:51:10 -0500, Nathan Sanders
>

>

> > (Note that analyst himself doesn't understand the
>
> > underlying methods, which probably accounts for his
>
> > assumption that no one else does, either.)
>
>
>
> Only partly, I think; he also can't afford to believe that
>
> others understand them.
>

***

probably so,
OIT-siders either don't understand what PIE is about or deliberately refuse to do so, or try to distort it.
In all cases there's a bundle of epistemological negationisms in the OIT:
- refusal to accept the Indo-Iranian genetic node,
- refusal to accept that Sanskrit vocalism is ** not ** original,
- refusal to accept that PIE is based on data and facts, and is not some kind of capricious invention plucked from the air.

It's probable a number of people are sincere in their misunderstandings, but it's also clear some others just do not want to understand a word of the regular theory and that everything has to be negated and stamped out by principle.

A.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:46:32 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-32135D...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:

> In article <x9o02yfvepz5.15...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

[...]

>> (By the way, did you get my e-mail the other day?)

> Yes, I did. Monday and Tuesday are busy days for me, so I
> haven't had a chance to respond yet, but I'll do that
> now.

No problem; I just wasn't entirely sure how often you
checked that address. I got it, and I've passed it on;
thanks very much!

Brian

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 19, 6:47 pm, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le mardi 19 février 2013 20:51:10 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
>
>
> > In article <ce928d39-783e-446f...@googlegroups.com>,
>

> >  Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.
>
> > Analyst seems to intend "boilerplate" to mean "arrived at by means of
>
> > generally accepted methodology", but with a negative connotation along
>
> > the lines of "people who are doing the general accepting do so
>
> > blindly, rather than because they understand the underlying methods".
>
> > (Note that analyst himself doesn't understand the underlying methods,
>
> > which probably accounts for his assumption that no one else does,
>
> > either.)
>
> ****
>
> Thanks for all answers,
>
> it's possible that this phrase makes little sense to me, because it's inadequate in the first place.
> I understand it suggests that PIE is a kind of copy-and-paste rote abstruse theory, which it normally is not.
>

> A.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The vast star-word edifice has been denied by someone of your stature
- Trubetzkoi - who has said "no matter how back you go in time - you
find many IE languages" or something like that. He thought the
languages in question became similar through interaction.

And you yourself exploded the more then a century of shoddy
scholarship with respect to Hek'wos. You can't say that its just one
word - I think it shows "cognates" in > 10 languages.

My own observation tis that all said and done - boilerplate is
matching Sanskrit sounds with non_Sanskrit graphemes - its absurd a
priori.

You will scale supreme heights as long as you stay away from Sanskrit
- its place wil be settled beyond a doubt one of these days by the
rapidly improving OIT theorists.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

I am sure there was a lot of pretense and posturing by the original,
mostly Indian "subalternists" - but for PTD to characterize it as an
"Indian-English" word is appallingly ignorant barbarism. We all know
that his command of the English language and its linguistics is
nothing to brag about - but this seems to be overt racism.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/ReadingSS_INTRO.pdf

"The word has a long past. In late-medieval English, it applied to
vassals and peasants. By 1700, it denoted lower ranks in the military,
suggesting peasant origins. By 1800, authors writing “from a subaltern
perspective” published novels and histories about military campaigns
in India and America; and G.R.Gleig (1796-1888), who wrote biographies
of Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, and Thomas Munro, mastered this
genre. The Great War provoked popular accounts of subaltern life in
published memoirs and diaries; and soon after the Russian Revolution,
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) began to weave ideas about subaltern
identity into theories of class struggle."

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mercredi 20 février 2013 02:08:00 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 6:47 pm, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>

>
> The vast star-word edifice has been denied by someone of your stature
>
> - Trubetzkoi - who has said "no matter how back you go in time - you
>
> find many IE languages" or something like that. He thought the
>
> languages in question became similar through interaction.

***

We know that what Trubetzkoy had in mind was to find a pseudo-scientific legitimacy to the Russian Sprachbund, everybody interacts with Russian, so that ultimately everybody speaks Russian.

A.
***

>
>
>
> And you yourself exploded the more then a century of shoddy
>
> scholarship with respect to Hek'wos. You can't say that its just one
>
> word - I think it shows "cognates" in > 10 languages.
>
>
>
> My own observation tis that all said and done - boilerplate is
>
> matching Sanskrit sounds with non_Sanskrit graphemes - its absurd a
>
> priori.

***

Nobody does that.

Anyway, and that's another obsession of OIT siders, Sanskrit is negligible,
we can just do good PIE without Sanskrit.
Sanskrit is just a south-eastern late offshoot of Central PIE. It has nothing so special that it should be given undue status.

A.
***

>
>
>
> You will scale supreme heights as long as you stay away from Sanskrit
>
> - its place wil be settled beyond a doubt one of these days by the
>
> rapidly improving OIT theorists.

***

rapidly improving...

reminds me of the radiating future of communism...

the OIT is not even a theory, it's only a political banner. From a scientific point of view, it's an empty shell.

A.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 19, 1:42 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 5:42 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le mardi 19 février 2013 17:26:28 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > > On Feb 19, 10:21 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.
>
> > > Can you understand _anything_ analyst41 says?
>
> > ***
>
> > I understand analyst41 is trying to describe IE studies in disparaging and derogatory words, but so far, "boilerplate PIE" makes little sense to me.
>
> > A.
>
> "Boilerplate" originally referred to large pieces of rolled steel
> which were put together to make boilers. Metaphorically, as Peter
> explained, it was used for lengthy passages of fixed language which
> were used in legal documents etc. analyst41's use of the term is meant
> to suggest that IEists roll off rote-learned etymologies and arguments
> without much thought.
>

Can anyone explain the weird fixation ng. English natives have in
denying that as far as "boilerplate" is concerned the semantic spread
to "sterile, uncreative formulaic thought/ideas" has taken place from
formulaic words alone (by the way "boilerplate" is also now a computer
science technical term - I think it stands for pre-formulated code
that can be inserted in other programs to speed up programming - i.e.,
its a good thing).

I was going to make a few citations, and since the first one is by
Chomsky - that ought to silence the assholes who know who they are.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5w6QwaOxfVsC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=%22usual+boilerplate%22&source=bl&ots=bJdZ4eEgnI&sig=Kz2bz_Z8zr8ZtWrJs0qJhlNTPh8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kSUkUYPXIqaO0QH5soG4AQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22usual%20boilerplate%22&f=false

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 19, 2:51 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <ce928d39-783e-446f...@googlegroups.com>,

>  Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > but this explanation still does not explain what "boilerplate PIE" might mean.
>
> Analyst seems to intend "boilerplate" to mean "arrived at by means of
> generally accepted methodology", but with a negative connotation along
> the lines of "people who are doing the general accepting do so
> blindly, rather than because they understand the underlying methods".
>
> (Note that analyst himself doesn't understand the underlying methods,
> which probably accounts for his assumption that no one else does,
> either.)
>
> Nathan
>
> --
> Department of Linguistics
> Swarthmore Collegehttp://sanders.phonologist.org/

I was certfied by the greatest currently practicing historical
linguist that I had found an error in boilerplate IE that is out there
including in an authoritative reference source.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 20, 2:20 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Gramsci was a Marxist, and did much of the writing he's best known for
in prison. It's been suggested that he started using "subaltern" (or
whatever the Italian word is) to avoid conventional expressions such
as "oppressed working classes", so he could get his writings past the
prison censors. I'm reluctant to believe Italian prison censors are
that dumb, but who knows?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 20, 12:33 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le mardi 19 février 2013 11:54:26 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :> On Feb 19, 5:22 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>   My only gripe is
>
> > that even supposedly authoritative sources such as Tower of Babel show
>
> > these as cognates.  They even have a star word *wak' for it.
>
> ***
>
> ok,
> but not everything that's on Tower of Babel is to be taken as blessed bread.
> Pokorny for example did not have that,
> it's something the Russians have added on their own, and I would not buy it.
>
> A.
> ***

Actually it is in Pokorny: u̯ā̆kā 'cow'.
See http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html
I wasn't able to check my hard copy today, but I think he says that
the gemination of -k- is "to be expected in names of animals", or
something to that effect.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 20, 3:02 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Hurrah! Now we have "error" to add to "shoddy scholarship",
"dishonesty" and "cheating". And with Arnaud's blessing, we can be
sure you will never provide any justification for this stream of
brainless accusations.

Actually, you've dropped a hint or two recently that you're just
having some fun, and don't really believe any of this crap. Is this
just a normal accompaniment to the onset of another manic phase?

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 19, 11:44 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

<slime>

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 20, 5:07 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 19, 11:44 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> <slime>

Instead of psycho-analyzing me - any idea why ng. English natives
misled Arnaud to the effect that I am using "boilerplate" in a sense
not used by English natives?

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 19, 11:40 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

> On Feb 20, 12:33 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le mardi 19 février 2013 11:54:26 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :> On Feb 19, 5:22 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >   My only gripe is
>
> > > that even supposedly authoritative sources such as Tower of Babel show
>
> > > these as cognates.  They even have a star word *wak' for it.
>
> > ***
>
> > ok,
> > but not everything that's on Tower of Babel is to be taken as blessed bread.
> > Pokorny for example did not have that,
> > it's something the Russians have added on their own, and I would not buy it.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> Actually it is in Pokorny: u̯ā̆kā  'cow'.

> Seehttp://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/PokornyMaster-X.html

> I wasn't able to check my hard copy today, but I think he says that
> the gemination of -k- is "to be expected in names of animals", or

> something to that effect.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny&first=1&off=&text_root=&method_root=substring&ic_root=on&text_meaning=cow&method_meaning=substring&ic_meaning=on&text_ger_mean=&method_ger_mean=substring&ic_ger_mean=on&text_grammar=&method_grammar=substring&ic_grammar=on&text_comments=&method_comments=substring&ic_comments=on&text_derivative=&method_derivative=substring&ic_derivative=on&text_material=&method_material=substring&ic_material=on&text_ref=&method_ref=substring&ic_ref=on&text_seealso=&method_seealso=substring&ic_seealso=on&text_pages=&method_pages=substring&ic_pages=on&text_any=&method_any=substring&sort=number&ic_any=on

Is better laid out.

It is still wrong but he does give वाशिता (vAshitA) as another
Sanskrit synonym - suggesting it is from वाश् (vAsh) to "low, roar,
howl" etc.

"vacca"'s baby-talk appearance (non-boilerplate thinking) should trump
"cognate-finding-101" reasoning (a similar sounding skt word with a
sibilant in place of a velar). And then there are vakshas and vatsa
that cannot be ruled out as the sources - not to speak of the
possibility that the Latin form is a late coinage purely internal to
Latin (or a non-IE borrowing).

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

ok, correct.

Anyway, that word belongs to the weak and dubious ones.

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

Anyway, orthodox PIE would be a better characterization.

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mercredi 20 février 2013 11:59:52 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 11:40 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
>

>

> It is still wrong but he does give वाशिता (vAshitA) as another
>
> Sanskrit synonym - suggesting it is from वाश् (vAsh) to "low, roar,
>
> howl" etc.
>
>
>
> "vacca"'s baby-talk appearance (non-boilerplate thinking) should trump
>
> "cognate-finding-101" reasoning (a similar sounding skt word with a
>
> sibilant in place of a velar). And then there are vakshas and vatsa
>
> that cannot be ruled out as the sources - not to speak of the
>
> possibility that the Latin form is a late coinage purely internal to
>
> Latin (or a non-IE borrowing).

***

I still can't see what you're trying to say.

It would be nice if you could remove all the jargon based on "boilerplate", etc. and avoid all the smoke and fire works.

Besides have you ever heard of Meillet's "mots populaires" or "mots d'origine populaire"?
It's been eons that linguists are aware of all that.
Are you a hen that recently discovered a knife in its yard and doesn't know what to do with that thing?

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mercredi 20 février 2013 05:44:15 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
> On Feb 20, 3:02 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>

>

> Hurrah! Now we have "error" to add to "shoddy scholarship",
>
> "dishonesty" and "cheating". And with Arnaud's blessing,

***

I'm not blessing anything here, though I may be dragged into this campaign.

My main point in criticizing orthodoxy is that they constantly misuse the word "PIE" to characterize what is in fact just "Proto-Central-IE", an evolved and later subbranch of the real PIE.

It's quite clear that orthodox pseudo-PIE cannot handle Anatolian data, though they strive to figure out how pseudo-PIE could be tinkered in order to do so.

I'm not saying that pseudo-PIE is false, my point is: the name of that proto-language is incorrect. What they describe with pseudo-PIE is "Proto-Central-IE".
On the whole Brugmannic pseudo-PIE is not false, it's not PIE.

I think the day orthodox IEists have understood they mischaracterize that, major advances can be expected.

Besides I think PIE requires four laryngeals, and not just three, and that there's no need for a separate phoneme *a in addition to *e, which stands for [a] for historiographic reasons.

I also disagree with the dating of PIE, which is linked to the fact that the orthodoxy erroneously assigns to PIE the dating of "Proto-Central-IE".
I'm ok with "Proto-Central-IE" ca -4000 BCE.
But PIE is much older than that, pre-neolithic in my opinion.

Another point is that i consider Anatolia to be the ultimate homeland of PIE.

A.
***

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 19, 11:31 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>

Did he have any prior experience with India? (It looks like analyst41
is so ignorant of the history of his or her country that he or she
doesn't recognize the names in the paragraph he or she quoted from his
or her typically googled-out-of-context web site.)

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mercredi 20 février 2013 15:14:52 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Feb 19, 11:31 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
>

>

> Did he have any prior experience with India? (It looks like analyst41
>
> is so ignorant of the history of his or her country that he or she
>
> doesn't recognize the names in the paragraph he or she quoted from his
>
> or her typically googled-out-of-context web site.)

***

And!?

What's the difference with you, fraud?

A.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

AFAIK Gramsci was not particularly concerned with India. He just
introduced a term into Marxist discourse which was eventually
translated as "subaltern" in English. The important shift takes place
in Spivak's very influential essay "Can the subaltern speak?" (1988)

[Peter T. Daniels]

And Spivak's background is known.

The question then becomes what the original Italian word was, and who
the translator was, and why they chose that Indian-specific term,
which was not unfamiliar to Spivak.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Where did you get the idea it was Indian-specific? Perhaps it's not
much used in the USA, but it's been around in British since the 17th
century: "A person...of inferior rank or status; a subordinate; A
junior officer, i.e. one below the rank of captain" (OED). No special
association with India.
My little Eng-Ital dictionary suggests there is an Italian cognate
"subalterno", though it may be primarily an adjective.

[Trond Engen]

anal...@hotmail.com:

> On Feb 20, 5:07 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 11:44 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <slime>
>
> Instead of psycho-analyzing me

Well, don't blame Ross for trying to find some intellectual amusement in
your posts. And you really are hard to figure out. You do all this
posturing about tearing down established science while at the same time
embracing all sorts of outdated or crackpot and obviously contradictory
theories. Since you manage to give the impression of not being outright
stupid, there has to be something else going on. It could have been your
ethno-political agenda, but you'll be well aware by now how badly your
appearance reflects on it, so if that really were your motivation, you'd
have gone silent in shame.

--
Trond Engen

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 20, 7:46 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le mercredi 20 février 2013 05:44:15 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:02 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> > Hurrah! Now we have "error" to add to "shoddy scholarship",
>
> > "dishonesty" and "cheating". And with Arnaud's blessing,
>
> ***
>
> I'm not blessing anything here, though I may be dragged into this campaign.
>

Please don't let Ross cause a fight between us (must be having an
awfully slow day at the office).

I am only claiming that you concur with my claim that the vacca
<>vashA cognacy is indefensible (if you wouldn't go so far I can go
with "questionable").

I am glad the native-English shitfucks were so nasty - as I was
googling around to strengthen the case I found another free Oxford
textbook and squirreled it away.

I think investigating vacca can get us all of PIE - its tentacles go
far.

(1) One writer claims it is related to Sanskrit "Bhaga" one of whose
meanings is the female genitalia - and the c-word, 'cow" etc. are
derogatory terms for women and I believe in Italian "vacca" is a
vulgar term denoting "slut".

(2) The magisterial Lehmann writes (in his book on Pre Indo European)

"Latin vacca, Lithuanian karve (cow) which are typically thematic and
accordingly late"

"vacca" sounds vulgar/baby-talk-ish - I wonder if Latin "ceva" or
other synonyms/near synonyms would have a better IE etymology.

(3) And Francesco Brighenti - writing in Yahoo groups gives yet
another possibility - that it may be from the Latin verb va:gi:re "to
cry, vail" to which corresponds Sanskrit वग्नु [vagnu] - "a cry, call"
etc.

As far as what is below - more power to you. There isn't a shadow of
a doubt that you'll leave the field much cleaner and more coherent
than the mess it is currently.

See if taking OIA out of the equation makes everything fit much
tighter. Pretend nothing is known about OIA and do your
reconstructions and you'll be surprised.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 21, 2:30 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 20, 7:46 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 20 février 2013 05:44:15 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
>
> > > On Feb 20, 3:02 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> > > Hurrah! Now we have "error" to add to "shoddy scholarship",
>
> > > "dishonesty" and "cheating". And with Arnaud's blessing,
>
> > ***
>
> > I'm not blessing anything here, though I may be dragged into this campaign.
>
> Please don't let Ross cause a fight between us (must be having an
> awfully slow day at the office).

Let's see..._you_ drag Arnaud into this, _I_ merely mention the fact,
and when he gets a little annoyed, it's my fault??

> I am only claiming that you concur with my claim that the vacca
> <>vashA cognacy is indefensible (if you wouldn't go so far I can go
> with "questionable").

Oh! So will "questionable" automatically entail "cheating",
"dishonesty", "shoddy scholarship", "error", etc.? Or are you just
going to try to forget those idiocies?

> I am glad the native-English shitfucks were so nasty - as I was
> googling around to strengthen the case I found another free Oxford
> textbook and squirreled it away.

So happy for you. So you are just going to continue to refuse to take
any responsibility for your own shitfuck sliminess?

> I think investigating vacca can get us all of PIE - its tentacles go
> far.

Yep, it's Manic Week, all right.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

> > > ***- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

R.I.P the Ross who kept up pretenses of being a decent human being
untill this thread and particularly this outpouring of baseness.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 21, 3:12 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

sad-face clown

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

More or less the same in French

"subalterne" basically means "of lower rank"

This can apply to people or to clauses in grammar or logic.

When applied to people it's distinctly derogatory or arrogant.

The word would be "indigène" indigenous rather than subaltern(e).

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le jeudi 21 février 2013 02:30:39 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 20, 7:46 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 20 février 2013 05:44:15 UTC+1, benl...@ihug.co.nz a écrit :
>
> >
>
> > > On Feb 20, 3:02 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > > Hurrah! Now we have "error" to add to "shoddy scholarship",
>
> >
>
> > > "dishonesty" and "cheating". And with Arnaud's blessing,
>
> >
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> > I'm not blessing anything here, though I may be dragged into this campaign.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Please don't let Ross cause a fight between us (must be having an
>
> awfully slow day at the office).

***

There's no fight.
But maybe you rhetorically underestimate some of our disagreements.

A.
***

>
>
>
> I am only claiming that you concur with my claim that the vacca
>
> <>vashA cognacy is indefensible (if you wouldn't go so far I can go
>
> with "questionable").
>

***

Things are not just black or white.

Latin vacca is in all cases a word that cannot be inherited in that shape,
as we don't know what it was before having that shape, everything amounts to speculation.

Old Indian vashA does not just mean (infertile) cow, I noticed it can also apply to ewes and women. So the core meaning is not about cows but about females in general. Incidentally the same is true with marya "young man, but also stallion and bull".

So apart from phonetic issues, this word is also questionable on semantic grounds.

vashA can be from *wek^A
what about an alternative etymology with wek-ti (Pk1136) "thing, being"

Personally I would not blame Pokorny for having messy or questionable entries in his book. In my opinion it's more a comparative dict. than a rigidly etymological dict. It's the responsibility of the readers to make up their minds on the basis of what is proposed in the book.
And it's also their duty to convert the roots into Laryngealist format.

A.
***

>
>
> I am glad the native-English shitfucks were so nasty - as I was
>
> googling around to strengthen the case I found another free Oxford
>
> textbook and squirreled it away.
>
>
>
> I think investigating vacca can get us all of PIE - its tentacles go
>
> far.

***

No.

This is just a soap bubble.

A.
***

>
>
>
> (1) One writer claims it is related to Sanskrit "Bhaga" one of whose
>
> meanings is the female genitalia - and the c-word, 'cow" etc. are
>
> derogatory terms for women and I believe in Italian "vacca" is a
>
> vulgar term denoting "slut".
>
>
>
> (2) The magisterial Lehmann writes (in his book on Pre Indo European)
>
>
>
> "Latin vacca, Lithuanian karve (cow) which are typically thematic and
>
> accordingly late"
>

***

so?

Anyway, this idea that thematic formations in PIE are "late" is possibly false.
This originates in the fact that non-thematic formations tend to disappear, while thematic formations tend to absorb everything.
but this *synchronic* tendency tells nothing about which of the two is older, admitting the premice that this issue makes any sense in the first place.

My opinion on this issue is that in PIE, compounds were thematic but primary words were non-thematic. It would also appear that nominal forms derived from verbs were thematic. The issue is not ancientness but morphemic structure.
the development of thematic formations is correlated with the expansion of compounding in the historical languages.
This situation was probably inherited in PIE, so its actual origin is older than PIE itself.

A.

***

>
>
> "vacca" sounds vulgar/baby-talk-ish - I wonder if Latin "ceva" or
>
> other synonyms/near synonyms would have a better IE etymology.
>
>
>
> (3) And Francesco Brighenti - writing in Yahoo groups gives yet
>
> another possibility - that it may be from the Latin verb va:gi:re "to
>
> cry, vail" to which corresponds Sanskrit वग्नु [vagnu] - "a cry, call"
>
> etc.

***

As the form vacca is not inherited, any speculative idea will do.

A.
***

>
>
>
> As far as what is below - more power to you. There isn't a shadow of
>
> a doubt that you'll leave the field much cleaner and more coherent
>
> than the mess it is currently.

***

Personally I'm not really interested in "cleaning" PIE orthodoxy.
That's mostly their problem, their job.

My target is to reconstruct (1) the real PIE, including Hurrian, (2) the ancestor of Uralic and some para-Uralic Amerindian languages, (3) proto-Semito-Berber and to compare these three proto-languages and see what they have in common.

I'm a macro-comparatist, I know how to make do with PIE orthodoxy and how to read between the lines of their theories.
I believe most of the crap and chaff in PIE orthodoxy will have to be discarded the day good macro-comparative works exist. They will expose what's wrong in PIE orthodoxy. That's why I'm quite happy and comfortable with my position as an outsider and outcast of IE studies.

A.
***

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yes, it _means_ that. But is it _used_?

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

At this point I'm not sure which word, which language, which sense,
you're asking.
But FWIW, after a small exploration:
The technical military sense seems alive and well in UK, but seems not
to be used in the American military.
Here are some post-1990 uses from NY Times and Washington Post, none
having anything to do with India:

Mexico’s centralized political system grants extraordinary authority
to the President, and his subalterns are traditionally reluctant to
take any important action without his approval. (NYT 21/06/90)
Noriega continues to exert a power and fascination over the former
subalterns and associates who have been called as witnesses against
him. (NYT 06/10/91)
…Orrin G.Hatch (R-Utah), one of Specter’s subalterns in the torching
of Hill’s reputation… (WP 17/10/91)
athletic directors have not been all-powerful figures, but Mr.Krause
emerged as both a wise and respected subaltern during his 31-year
tenure. (NYT 12/12/92)
…daily supervision of neighborhood reforms falls to the City of
Baltimore and Schmoke’s designated subaltern, Barbara Bostick,
executive director of the partnership. (WP 04/01/93)
[Clinton] has permitted his subalterns to seek a Cairo policy that
establishes the vision of population-control theorists as
U.S.doctrine. (WP 05/09/94)
The house swarmed with industry, as workmen in hard hats, decorators
and their subalterns moved back and forth over thresholds… (NYT
16/04/09)
Questions were also raised about what would happen now to the numerous
criminal cases opened against him [Pinochet] and his subalterns. (NYT
12/12/06)
…[Argentine General Bussi] insisted on supervising many executions
himself, personally shooting prisoners in the back of the neck so as
to encourage his subalterns not to falter. (NYT 01/09/03)
But once these all-powerful subalterns [MTV production assistants]
reach their late 20’s, there are few opportunities to advance… (NYT
27/02/00)
…the daily grand jury scrum of strategists and subalterns summoned
over from the White House (NYT 01/03/98)

[anal...@hotmail.com]

> over from the White House  (NYT 01/03/98)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Here is a Google search result pertaining to "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are dead"

New York Magazine - Jun 1, 1987 - Page 62
books.google.com/books?id=I-UCAAAAMBAJ
Vol. 20, No. 22 - Magazine - Full view
As you will remember, R.&G. is, in effect, Hamlet turned inside out
like a glove: the story of those subaltern characters, Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern, summoned by higher powers — perhaps destiny itself — to
Elsinore, there to play a minor ...

End quote.

Lets see now - it started out in Middle English, became "Indian
English" according to PTD (say, some time in the 1970s or early
1980s) - but one has to say that it didn't remain so for too long.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 21, 5:12 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

> 1980s)  - but one has to say that it didn't remain so for too long.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Goes back even further

Lippincott's magazine of literature, science and education - Volume 2
- Page 173
books.google.com/books?id=BVxFAAAAYAAJ
1868 - Read - More editions
I am sorry to see," continued Zaltah, " that Mr. Booth leaves out the
soliloquy in Act iv., scene 4 — the one occurring after his dismissal
of those subaltern souls, Rosencrantz and Guildenstiern. This passage
is as much needed as any other for ...

end quote.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 21, 1:03 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:24 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 4:42 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

[why can't you snip?]

> > > Where did you get the idea it was Indian-specific? Perhaps it's not
> > > much used in the USA, but it's been around in British since the 17th
> > > century: "A person...of inferior rank or status; a subordinate;  A
> > > junior officer, i.e. one below the rank of captain" (OED). No special
> > > association with India.
> > > My little Eng-Ital dictionary suggests there is an Italian cognate
> > > "subalterno", though it may be primarily an adjective.
>
> > Yes, it _means_ that. But is it _used_?
>
> At this point I'm not sure which word, which language, which sense,
> you're asking.
> But FWIW, after a small exploration:
> The technical military sense seems alive and well in UK, but seems not
> to be used in the American military.
> Here are some post-1990 uses from NY Times and Washington Post, none
> having anything to do with India:
>
> Mexico’s centralized political system grants extraordinary authority
> to the President, and his subalterns are traditionally reluctant to
> take any important action without his approval. (NYT 21/06/90)
> Noriega continues to exert a power and fascination over the former
> subalterns and associates who have been called as witnesses against
> him. (NYT 06/10/91)

So it's a technical term in Central America too?

> …Orrin G.Hatch (R-Utah), one of Specter’s subalterns in the torching
> of Hill’s reputation… (WP 17/10/91)

You don't recognize sarcasm?

> athletic directors have not been all-powerful figures, but Mr.Krause
> emerged as both a wise and respected subaltern during his 31-year
> tenure. (NYT 12/12/92)

context?

> …daily supervision of neighborhood reforms falls to the City of
> Baltimore and Schmoke’s designated subaltern, Barbara Bostick,
> executive director of the partnership. (WP 04/01/93)
> [Clinton] has permitted his subalterns  to seek a Cairo policy that
> establishes  the vision of population-control theorists  as
> U.S.doctrine. (WP 05/09/94)

sarcasm

> The house swarmed with industry, as workmen in hard hats, decorators
> and their subalterns moved back and forth over thresholds… (NYT
> 16/04/09)

twee?

> Questions were also raised about what would happen now to the numerous
> criminal cases opened against him [Pinochet] and his subalterns. (NYT
> 12/12/06)
> …[Argentine General Bussi] insisted on supervising many executions
> himself, personally shooting prisoners in the back of the neck so as
> to encourage his subalterns not to falter. (NYT 01/09/03)

Latin America (see above)

> But once these all-powerful subalterns [MTV production assistants]
> reach their late 20’s, there are few opportunities to advance… (NYT
> 27/02/00)
> …the daily grand jury scrum of strategists and subalterns summoned
> over from the White House  (NYT 01/03/98)

twee

Are these selected from zillions of uses over the last 20 years, or is
this all the appearances of the word in that entire time?

Why are you being Nathanesque in denying a simple fact about the non-
use of a word?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 21, 5:26 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>

> Goes back even further
>
> Lippincott's magazine of literature, science and education - Volume 2
> - Page 173
> books.google.com/books?id=BVxFAAAAYAAJ
> 1868 - Read - More editions
> I am sorry to see," continued Zaltah, " that Mr. Booth leaves out the
> soliloquy in Act iv., scene 4 — the one occurring after his dismissal
> of those subaltern souls, Rosencrantz and Guildenstiern. This passage
> is as much needed as any other for ...
>
> end quote.

I am not unprepared to believe that the term has been associated with
R&G for a very long time.

I am not at all surprised that analyst41 has no sense of the tone of a
passage.

Here's one of her or his favorite sources, wikipedia:

***
The usage and the application of the terms subaltern and subaltern
studies entered the field of post-colonial studies through the works
of the Subaltern Studies Group, a collection of South Asian historians
who explored the political-actor role of the men and women who are the
mass population — rather than the political roles of the social and
economic élites — in the history of South Asia. In the 1970s, the
application of subaltern began to denote the colonized peoples of the
South Asian Subcontinent, and described a new perspective of the
history of an imperial colony, told from the point of view of the
colonized man and woman, rather than from the points of view of the
colonizers; in which respect, Marxist historians already had been
investigating colonial history told from the perspective of the
proletariat. In the 1980s, the scope of enquiry of Subaltern Studies
was applied as an “intervention in South Asian historiography”.
***

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 22, 1:19 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 1:03 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 5:24 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 4:42 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [why can't you snip?]

> > > > Where did you get the idea it was Indian-specific? Perhaps it's not
> > > > much used in the USA, but it's been around in British since the 17th
> > > > century: "A person...of inferior rank or status; a subordinate;  A
> > > > junior officer, i.e. one below the rank of captain" (OED). No special
> > > > association with India.
> > > > My little Eng-Ital dictionary suggests there is an Italian cognate
> > > > "subalterno", though it may be primarily an adjective.
>
> > > Yes, it _means_ that. But is it _used_?
>
> > At this point I'm not sure which word, which language, which sense,
> > you're asking.

But rather than explain exactly what it was you were questioning, you
proceed in your usual way to nitpick in every possible direction.

> > But FWIW, after a small exploration:
> > The technical military sense seems alive and well in UK, but seems not
> > to be used in the American military.
> > Here are some post-1990 uses from NY Times and Washington Post, none
> > having anything to do with India:
>
> > Mexico’s centralized political system grants extraordinary authority
> > to the President, and his subalterns are traditionally reluctant to
> > take any important action without his approval. (NYT 21/06/90)
> > Noriega continues to exert a power and fascination over the former
> > subalterns and associates who have been called as witnesses against
> > him. (NYT 06/10/91)
>
> So it's a technical term in Central America too?

If it is, apparently American readers are familiar enough with it that
NYT writers can use its English equivalent and expect to be
understood.

> …Orrin G.Hatch (R-Utah), one of Specter’s subalterns in the
torching
> > of Hill’s reputation… (WP 17/10/91)
>
> You don't recognize sarcasm?

Of course I do. So what?

> > athletic directors have not been all-powerful figures, but Mr.Krause
> > emerged as both a wise and respected subaltern during his 31-year
> > tenure. (NYT 12/12/92)
>
> context?

Krase was athletic director at Notre Dame, where, as the story
explained, sports is/are so important that decisions are often taken
by the highest officials of the university, to whom the AD is a
subaltern

> > …daily supervision of neighborhood reforms falls to the City of
> > Baltimore and Schmoke’s designated subaltern, Barbara Bostick,
> > executive director of the partnership. (WP 04/01/93)
> > [Clinton] has permitted his subalterns  to seek a Cairo policy that
> > establishes  the vision of population-control theorists  as
> > U.S.doctrine. (WP 05/09/94)
>
> sarcasm

So....?

>
> > The house swarmed with industry, as workmen in hard hats, decorators
> > and their subalterns moved back and forth over thresholds… (NYT
> > 16/04/09)
>
> twee?

So...?

> > Questions were also raised about what would happen now to the numerous
> > criminal cases opened against him [Pinochet] and his subalterns. (NYT
> > 12/12/06)
> > …[Argentine General Bussi] insisted on supervising many executions
> > himself, personally shooting prisoners in the back of the neck so as
> > to encourage his subalterns not to falter. (NYT 01/09/03)
>
> Latin America (see above)

See above.

>
> > But once these all-powerful subalterns [MTV production assistants]
> > reach their late 20’s, there are few opportunities to advance… (NYT
> > 27/02/00)
> > …the daily grand jury scrum of strategists and subalterns summoned
> > over from the White House  (NYT 01/03/98)
>
> twee

So...?

> Are these selected from zillions of uses over the last 20 years, or is
> this all the appearances of the word in that entire time?

They are a selection. I can't count to zillions.

> Why are you being Nathanesque in denying a simple fact about the non-
> use of a word?

Why are you being PTD-ish in denying a simple fact about the use of a
word? Oh, never mind, I don't need to ask.

Look, you jumped to a mistaken conclusion about it being Indian
English. But I don't think you ever claimed it was never used in the
USA. I just thought you might have been in some uncertainty, since you
asked the question. So now you know. It may not be as common as in
England. It may be used a lot about Latin America; it may sometimes be
used sarcastically or tweeily; but there it is.

PS: The US military do not seem to use the term now, but it may not
always have been so. I have come across more than one reference to
Ulysses S.Grant having been a "young subaltern" at the time of the
Mexican War.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

On Feb 22, 1:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[snip]

>
> Here's one of her or his favorite sources, wikipedia:
>
> ***
> The usage and the application of the terms subaltern and subaltern
> studies entered the field of post-colonial studies through the works
> of the Subaltern Studies Group, a collection of South Asian historians
> who explored the political-actor role of the men and women who are the
> mass population — rather than the political roles of the social and
> economic élites — in the history of South Asia. In the 1970s, the
> application of subaltern began to denote the colonized peoples of the
> South Asian Subcontinent, and described a new perspective of the
> history of an imperial colony, told from the point of view of the
> colonized man and woman, rather than from the points of view of the
> colonizers; in which respect, Marxist historians already had been
> investigating colonial history told from the perspective of the
> proletariat. In the 1980s, the scope of enquiry of Subaltern Studies
> was applied as an “intervention in South Asian historiography”.
> ***

Yes, my earlier mention of this is probably what misled you into
thinking it was Indian.
The SSG were the ones who started using the term in its present PoMo
sense, but though they were mostly Indians and writing about India,
they did not get the word from Indian English. They got it from
Gramsci.
Apparently they used it mostly the way Gramsci did, to describe
classes or groups. The essay by Spivak, however, which became
extremely well known, popularized the use of the singular noun, "the
subaltern", to focus on the individual. There is more detail on this,
for anyone who might actually be interested, in a book called "The
Postcolonial Gramsci", which is searchable in Google Books.

[Peter T. Daniels]

So you admit it's obsolete except in India and perhaps Latin America
(where it presumably translates something from Spanish).

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

What? You cannot seriously have looked at the evidence just presented
and come up with a bizarre summary like that.
Let me help you:

- The technical military term for lower ranks is still in use in the UK

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Thanks for premature posting, Google.>:-(

Now, to return to the thankless task of correcting your travesty:
- We have no information on its present usage in India (other than by
PoMo theorists). The putative use of some cognate term in Spanish is
of no relevance to the question of its status in English.
- The military term for lower ranks is still in use in the UK. It is
not presently used in the USA, but apparently was in the past.
- The general sense of a subordinate or person of lower rank is in use
in both UK and USA. I presented you with a dozen examples of use from
the last couple of decades in two of America's major newspapers, in a
variety of contexts domestic and foreign. Your objections (if they can
be called that) were completely irrelevant to the fact of its
continuing use.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

> (where it presumably translates something from Spanish).- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The very first sentence in the Ludden article I cited says

"Subaltern Studies1 began its impressive career in England at the end
of the 1970s, when conversations on subaltern themes among a small
group of English and Indian historians led to a proposal to launch a
new journal in India."

Footnote number 2:

"For SS volumes 1-7, the Editorial Team included Shahid Amin (1-7),
David Arnold (1-7), Gautam Bhadra (2-7), Dipesh Chakrabarty (2-7),
Partha Chatterjee (1-7), Ranajit Guha (1-7), David Hardiman (1-7),
Gyanendra Pandey (1-7), and Sumit Sarkar (3-7). Change in the
Collective after 1989 is indicated in prefatory citations and by also
by the editorship of later SS volumes."


Doesn't look purely "Indian" to me. Even if the word was given the
generalized meaning only by Indians - these were highly qualified
academics who moved in the world of international scholarship (I see
four Bengalis in the list - who most likely spoke chaste OxBridge back
in the late 70s - early 80s) - and to call it "Indian English" is
bizarre, to say the least.

It (the new sense of the word - although the Rosencratz & Guildenstern
quote goes back to the 19th cent.) is now English - period. see below
from 2012.

http://theamericanscholar.org/irregular-guy/

"In his closing pages Dirda reexamines the Holmes-Watson relationship,
and after the charms of previous chapters we are left hoping for an
explication of this central riddle. Watson, he argues, is only a
subaltern, a full-time audience of one. Yet he senses that Doyle
speaks through Watson, who alone can humanize Holmes".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 22, 12:45 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>

"No relevance"??? Do you have no understanding of US - Latin America
relations, or of the status of Spanish in the US???

> - The military term for lower ranks is still in use in the UK. It is
> not presently used in the USA, but apparently was in the past.

You provided no evidence of any official status of the term.

> - The general sense of a subordinate or person of lower rank is in use
> in both UK and USA. I presented you with a dozen examples of use from
> the last couple of decades in two of America's major newspapers, in a
> variety of contexts domestic and foreign. Your objections (if they can
> be called that) were completely irrelevant to the fact of its
> continuing use.

You refuse to say whether your "dozen examples" are sampled from
thousands, or are the totality of the outliers, in specific marked
contexts, that they appear to be.

I happen to have recently acquired the Kucera & Francis 1967 analysis
of the Brown Corpus, 1,000,000 words of text from sources published in
1961, and the word occurs once. That should give you excitations!

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0b18a403-a1d0-4455...@g8g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

>> > > > > Mexico�s centralized political system grants extraordinary authority

>> > > > > to the President, and his subalterns are traditionally reluctant to
>> > > > > take any important action without his approval. (NYT 21/06/90)
>> > > > > Noriega continues to exert a power and fascination over the former
>> > > > > subalterns and associates who have been called as witnesses against
>> > > > > him. (NYT 06/10/91)
>>
>> > > > So it's a technical term in Central America too?
>>
>> > > If it is, apparently American readers are familiar enough with it that
>> > > NYT writers can use its English equivalent and expect to be
>> > > understood.
>>

>> > > > �Orrin G.Hatch (R-Utah), one of Specter�s subalterns in the
>> > > torching
>>
>> > > > > of Hill�s reputation� (WP 17/10/91)

>>
>> > > > You don't recognize sarcasm?
>>
>> > > Of course I do. So what?
>>
>> > > > > athletic directors have not been all-powerful figures, but Mr.Krause
>> > > > > emerged as both a wise and respected subaltern during his 31-year
>> > > > > tenure. (NYT 12/12/92)
>>
>> > > > context?
>>
>> > > Krase was athletic director at Notre Dame, where, as the story
>> > > explained, sports is/are so important that decisions are often taken
>> > > by the highest officials of the university, to whom the AD is a
>> > > subaltern
>>

>> > > > > �daily supervision of neighborhood reforms falls to the City of
>> > > > > Baltimore and Schmoke�s designated subaltern, Barbara Bostick,

>> > > > > executive director of the partnership. (WP 04/01/93)
>> > > > > [Clinton] has permitted his subalterns to seek a Cairo policy that
>> > > > > establishes the vision of population-control theorists as
>> > > > > U.S.doctrine. (WP 05/09/94)
>>
>> > > > sarcasm
>>
>> > > So....?
>>
>> > > > > The house swarmed with industry, as workmen in hard hats, decorators

>> > > > > and their subalterns moved back and forth over thresholds� (NYT

>> > > > > 16/04/09)
>>
>> > > > twee?
>>
>> > > So...?
>>
>> > > > > Questions were also raised about what would happen now to the numerous
>> > > > > criminal cases opened against him [Pinochet] and his subalterns. (NYT
>> > > > > 12/12/06)

>> > > > > �[Argentine General Bussi] insisted on supervising many executions

>> > > > > himself, personally shooting prisoners in the back of the neck so as
>> > > > > to encourage his subalterns not to falter. (NYT 01/09/03)
>>
>> > > > Latin America (see above)
>>
>> > > See above.
>>
>> > > > > But once these all-powerful subalterns [MTV production assistants]

>> > > > > reach their late 20�s, there are few opportunities to advance� (NYT
>> > > > > 27/02/00)
>> > > > > �the daily grand jury scrum of strategists and subalterns summoned

Hey Ross, still having fun "throwing peas against the wall"?

pjk

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Do you have no understanding of what relevance means?

Perhaps what you intended to say was "obsolete except _with reference
to_ Latin America". Even this is not true, as you can see by reviewing
the quotations. In any case, the putative existence of some related
term in Spanish does not affect the fact that the word "subaltern" is
used in these texts, in American English.

> > - The military term for lower ranks is still in use in the UK. It is
> > not presently used in the USA, but apparently was in the past.
>
> You provided no evidence of any official status of the term.

Exactly why is this suddenly an issue?

> > - The general sense of a subordinate or person of lower rank is in use
> > in both UK and USA. I presented you with a dozen examples of use from
> > the last couple of decades in two of America's major newspapers, in a
> > variety of contexts domestic and foreign. Your objections (if they can
> > be called that) were completely irrelevant to the fact of its
> > continuing use.
>
> You refuse to say whether your "dozen examples" are sampled from
> thousands, or are the totality of the outliers, in specific marked
> contexts, that they appear to be.

They're not the totality of anything. Clearly you are desperate to
marginalize them so that you can declare the word "obsolete (except
where it isn't)". If it means that much to you, you can collect your
own data and apply your own statistical tests.

> I happen to have recently acquired the Kucera & Francis 1967 analysis
> of the Brown Corpus, 1,000,000 words of text from sources published in
> 1961, and the word occurs once. That should give you excitations!

No, can't say I'm feeling anything like that. You will find quite a
large number of words showing exactly the same one-in-a-million
figure. Are you going to declare them all obsolete?

Of course, if I had presented citations from 1961 you would no doubt
have sneered "Half a century ago!".

But inevitably I became curious and looked to ProQuest for 1961.
Here's the totality of what I found (actually I got tired of it after
a while and it's only the second half of the year, working back from
December):

Winston Churchill as a subaltern of the Fourth Queen’s Own Hussars,
1895 (photo caption) (NYT 26/11)

(name of a racehorse) (passim)

...the real estate men and the clerks and the insurance salesmen and
the political subalterns swing with these types. (WP 29/10)

...every horse was an individual with as much character as the most
impressive Indian brave, galloping messenger or spruced-up young
subaltern. (NYT 5/10)

In the British Army there is a legend that the role of the subaltern
is ‘to show his soldiers how to die’. (NYT 17/09)

The stream-of-consciousness soul-searching of the young subaltern
reveals him as more of a jerk than a man. (WP 13/08)

The Marquess of Ailesbury fought as a young subaltern in the Boer
War... (WP 06/08)

Unable to credit what he thought he saw, he called upon trustworthy
subalterns to verify his impression. (Chicago Daily Tribune 30/07)

Winkelmann...called Eichman “a haughty officer....the personification
of a haughty subaltern. I did not like him.” (WP 26/07)


I'll be happy to supply additional context for any of these if you
need it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It is very very very very rare and unusual in American English. It
would not be used, for instance, in a quality TV drama (not that it
would be likely to be relevant in any that _I_ watch, but contexts for
it might arise in *Homeland* or *24* (which may or may not have been
"quality" -- that it lasted for 6 seasons on Fox suggests it wasn't)
or the new Kevin Spacey series whose name I don't remember, based on a
British series about a corrupt official who addresses the audience
regularly.)

> > > - The military term for lower ranks is still in use in the UK. It is
> > > not presently used in the USA, but apparently was in the past.
>
> > You provided no evidence of any official status of the term.
>
> Exactly why is this suddenly an issue?

You JUST CLAIMED something about the US armed services with no
justification whatsoever.

> > > - The general sense of a subordinate or person of lower rank is in use
> > > in both UK and USA. I presented you with a dozen examples of use from
> > > the last couple of decades in two of America's major newspapers, in a
> > > variety of contexts domestic and foreign. Your objections (if they can
> > > be called that) were completely irrelevant to the fact of its
> > > continuing use.
>
> > You refuse to say whether your "dozen examples" are sampled from
> > thousands, or are the totality of the outliers, in specific marked
> > contexts, that they appear to be.
>
> They're not the totality of anything. Clearly you are desperate to
> marginalize them so that you can declare the word "obsolete (except
> where it isn't)". If it means that much to you, you can collect your
> own data and apply your own statistical tests.

My data is that I, who am fairly widely read and regularly listen to
(lefty) political radio most of the day [where one might expect po-mo
jargon to have infiltrated], have never encountered the word in any
domestic context, and only very very very rarely in exotic Indian
contexts.

> > I happen to have recently acquired the Kucera & Francis 1967 analysis
> > of the Brown Corpus, 1,000,000 words of text from sources published in
> > 1961, and the word occurs once. That should give you excitations!
>
> No, can't say I'm feeling anything like that. You will find quite a
> large number of words showing exactly the same one-in-a-million
> figure. Are you going to declare them all obsolete?

Sigh. My point was that it was so _common_ that it appeared once in
that corpus! Since my immediate concern is irregular spellings, the
first things I looked for were <people leopard jeopardy yeoman>, There
happen to be 9 forms of "jeopardy" and 2 of "leopard" -- not including
the subjective singular. (No yeomen.)

> Of course, if I had presented citations from 1961 you would no doubt
> have sneered "Half a century ago!".
>
> But inevitably I became curious and looked to ProQuest for 1961.
> Here's the totality of what I found (actually I got tired of it after
> a while and it's only the second half of the year, working back from
> December):
>
> Winston Churchill as a subaltern of the Fourth Queen’s Own Hussars,
> 1895 (photo caption)  (NYT 26/11)
>
> (name of a racehorse) (passim)
>
> ...the real estate men and the clerks and the insurance salesmen and
> the political subalterns swing with these types. (WP 29/10)
>
> ...every horse was an individual with as much character as the most
> impressive Indian brave, galloping messenger or spruced-up young
> subaltern. (NYT 5/10)
>
> In the British Army there is a legend that the role of the subaltern
> is ‘to show his soldiers how to die’. (NYT 17/09)
>
> The stream-of-consciousness soul-searching of the young subaltern
> reveals him as more of a jerk than a man. (WP 13/08)

Looks like a reference to a specific person -- perhaps like all but
one of the others, a member of a British armed service.

> The Marquess of Ailesbury fought as a young subaltern in the Boer
> War... (WP 06/08)
>
> Unable to credit what he thought he saw, he called upon trustworthy
> subalterns to verify his impression. (Chicago Daily Tribune 30/07)
>
> Winkelmann...called Eichman “a haughty officer....the personification
> of a haughty subaltern. I did not like him.” (WP 26/07)

Once again, not literal but highly negative. Did the Washington Post
really misspell Eichmann?

> I'll be happy to supply additional context for any of these if you
> need it.

In all but one, the context is clear. Either an officer in an overseas
British armed service (Churchill was in the Boer War so presumably was
in South Africa in 1895), or a derogation.

[benl...@ihug.co.nz]

Well, whatever may be the case in TV drama-land, it is clear that
American writers continue to use it in print in major newspapers,
without apology or explanation. I'll leave you to work out the
statistical justification for the number of "very"s you want to add.

> > > > - The military term for lower ranks is still in use in the UK. It is
> > > > not presently used in the USA, but apparently was in the past.
>
> > > You provided no evidence of any official status of the term.
>
> > Exactly why is this suddenly an issue?
>
> You JUST CLAIMED something about the US armed services with no
> justification whatsoever.

Actually what I said was: "The US military do not seem to use the term
now...". The justification for this cautious claim was my not having
found any such uses in my 1990- search. Do you think I'm wrong?

I also suggested previous use of the term in its military sense in the
USA, and mentioned a particular well known American soldier who was
described as a "subaltern" in the early 19th century. Google makes it
easy for you to confirm this if you wish.

The military use seems to be still current in the UK, by contrast. As
to the "official status" of the term in either country at any
historical period -- I have no information, and have not made any
claims about that. It may well be that even where it is/was used it is
an informal term for (say) ranks below Captain, but not actually an
official term that the military uses.

> > > > - The general sense of a subordinate or person of lower rank is in use
> > > > in both UK and USA. I presented you with a dozen examples of use from
> > > > the last couple of decades in two of America's major newspapers, in a
> > > > variety of contexts domestic and foreign. Your objections (if they can
> > > > be called that) were completely irrelevant to the fact of its
> > > > continuing use.
>
> > > You refuse to say whether your "dozen examples" are sampled from
> > > thousands, or are the totality of the outliers, in specific marked
> > > contexts, that they appear to be.
>
> > They're not the totality of anything. Clearly you are desperate to
> > marginalize them so that you can declare the word "obsolete (except
> > where it isn't)". If it means that much to you, you can collect your
> > own data and apply your own statistical tests.
>
> My data is that I, who am fairly widely read and regularly listen to
> (lefty) political radio most of the day [where one might expect po-mo
> jargon to have infiltrated], have never encountered the word in any
> domestic context, and only very very very rarely in exotic Indian
> contexts.

Ah well, so much for the statistical tests then...
So on the basis of your own experience you decided it was "obsolete"
-- to which you have now added a few "except..." categories.
I hope I've broadened the range of your experience.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:39:49 -0800 (PST),
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:49a7860e-fb1b-4418...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:

[...]

> I also suggested previous use of the term in its military
> sense in the USA, and mentioned a particular well known
> American soldier who was described as a "subaltern" in
> the early 19th century. Google makes it easy for you to
> confirm this if you wish.

> The military use seems to be still current in the UK, by contrast.

The 3rd edition of the OED updated the entry for <subaltern>
last June; it has a 2001 citation from Navy News:

A Navy polo team broke a 104-year duck by winning
the annual Captains and Subalterns polo tournament at
Tidworth.

<http://regimentalrogue.com/srsub/rcr404.htm> is an excerpt
from the 1992 Regimental Standing Orders of the Royal
Canadian Regiment. It begins as follows:

404. Senior Subaltern

1. A subaltern is an officer below the rank of
Captain. The subaltern appointed unit Senior
Subaltern will have status immediately following
that of the junior Captain though he may not be
the senior subaltern by virtue of time in rank.

My impression is that current British usage is similar.

> As to the "official status" of the term in either country
> at any historical period -- I have no information, and
> have not made any claims about that. It may well be that
> even where it is/was used it is an informal term for
> (say) ranks below Captain, but not actually an official
> term that the military uses.

<http://usmilitary.about.com/od/jointservices/a/rankhistory.htm>
quotes George Washington as follows:

As the Continental Army has unfortunately no uniforms,
and consequently many inconveniences must arise from not
being able to distinguish the commissioned officers from
the privates, it is desired that some badge of
distinction be immediately provided; for instance that
the field officers may have red or pink colored cockades
in their hats, the captains yellow or buff, and the
subalterns green.

The sources that I've checked aren't clear on whether
'subaltern' was then a general term for officers below the
rank of captain or a specific term of rank alongside
'ensign' and 'coronet' -- or both.

[...]

Brian

[pauljk]

<benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:49a7860e-fb1b-4418...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>> > > > > > > > Mexico�s centralized political system grants extraordinary authority

>> > > > > > > > to the President, and his subalterns are traditionally reluctant to
>> > > > > > > > take any important action without his approval. (NYT 21/06/90)
>> > > > > > > > Noriega continues to exert a power and fascination over the former
>> > > > > > > > subalterns and associates who have been called as witnesses against
>> > > > > > > > him. (NYT 06/10/91)
>>
>> > > > > > > So it's a technical term in Central America too?
>>
>> > > > > > If it is, apparently American readers are familiar enough with it that
>> > > > > > NYT writers can use its English equivalent and expect to be
>> > > > > > understood.
>>

>> > > > > > > �Orrin G.Hatch (R-Utah), one of Specter�s subalterns in the
>> > > > > > torching
>>
>> > > > > > > > of Hill�s reputation� (WP 17/10/91)

>>
>> > > > > > > You don't recognize sarcasm?
>>
>> > > > > > Of course I do. So what?
>>
>> > > > > > > > athletic directors have not been all-powerful figures, but Mr.Krause
>> > > > > > > > emerged as both a wise and respected subaltern during his 31-year
>> > > > > > > > tenure. (NYT 12/12/92)
>>
>> > > > > > > context?
>>
>> > > > > > Krase was athletic director at Notre Dame, where, as the story
>> > > > > > explained, sports is/are so important that decisions are often taken
>> > > > > > by the highest officials of the university, to whom the AD is a
>> > > > > > subaltern
>>

>> > > > > > > > �daily supervision of neighborhood reforms falls to the City of
>> > > > > > > > Baltimore and Schmoke�s designated subaltern, Barbara Bostick,

>> > > > > > > > executive director of the partnership. (WP 04/01/93)
>> > > > > > > > [Clinton] has permitted his subalterns to seek a Cairo policy that
>> > > > > > > > establishes the vision of population-control theorists as
>> > > > > > > > U.S.doctrine. (WP 05/09/94)
>>
>> > > > > > > sarcasm
>>
>> > > > > > So....?
>>
>> > > > > > > > The house swarmed with industry, as workmen in hard hats, decorators

>> > > > > > > > and their subalterns moved back and forth over thresholds� (NYT

>> > > > > > > > 16/04/09)
>>
>> > > > > > > twee?
>>
>> > > > > > So...?
>>
>> > > > > > > > Questions were also raised about what would happen now to the numerous
>> > > > > > > > criminal cases opened against him [Pinochet] and his subalterns. (NYT
>> > > > > > > > 12/12/06)

>> > > > > > > > �[Argentine General Bussi] insisted on supervising many executions

>> > > > > > > > himself, personally shooting prisoners in the back of the neck so as
>> > > > > > > > to encourage his subalterns not to falter. (NYT 01/09/03)
>>
>> > > > > > > Latin America (see above)
>>
>> > > > > > See above.
>>
>> > > > > > > > But once these all-powerful subalterns [MTV production assistants]

>> > > > > > > > reach their late 20�s, there are few opportunities to advance� (NYT
>> > > > > > > > 27/02/00)
>> > > > > > > > �the daily grand jury scrum of strategists and subalterns summoned

I recon the selection of books you read, and radio programs
you listen to, must be rather idiosyncratic than catholic.

> Ah well, so much for the statistical tests then...

It is the kind of statistical test with sample population of one,
hit rate of 100% and error margin of zero.
(Yes, error margin of zero, that is the way Peter works it)

How come the embarrassment of presenting this kind of
argument doesn't prevent Peter from airing it in public?

pjk

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 16, 10:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Latin vacca "cow" is a MIA type corruption of Sanskrit वक्षस्
> [Vakshas] "Ox" a variant of उक्षन् [Ukshan] or वत्स  [vatsa]  "calf"
> probably from "yearling".  Instead it is made cognate with वशा [vashA]
> "cow" (although there is no trigger for the "palatalization".)
>
> And even that doesn't work always - from the cognate set
>
> gharma thermos formus "hot" - which are the "Kentum" and which the
> "Satem" forms?

Here is a quote from an article on "feminist pornography"

Right. So how do we refer to that porn that feminist pornographers are
responding to? Because like you said, “mainstream” doesn’t quite do
it.

I’d like to just say “some” mainstream porn, or “repetitive,
stereotypical porn.” I feel like the porn that I’m responding to is
porn that feels like it’s constantly repeating these very specific
sexual roles and these specific tropes, it’s repeating a specific
aesthetic, and it feels tired and repetitive and overdone and
uninspired.

end quote.

This seems to be a good description of the whole extant PIE enterprise
- the end of result of the star-words is just pornography. You take
words that were actually said by living breathing people and put them
in the sound-algebra mixmaster and out come obscenities that don't
quite sound like human language.

Here is an example:

Sanskrit gardabha and Tocharian kercapo = "ass" - have "sound-
correspondences" that can mechanically lead to the star-word
*gordebhos (said absurdity occurs in many "respectable" sources). But
the fact is that it has only two attestations and that stalwart
invasionist Asko Parpola has traced the origin to the Indus Valley
Civilization (Tamil kazhutai = "ass" etymologized as "desert-kicker")
and the Sanskrit word is a loan with the "bha" suffix added that often
occurs at the end of animal names (rishabha, rAsabha etc.).

And lo and behold we see an example of Sanskrit a-a-a > other IE e-a-
o.

The entire edifice based on compression of PIE vowels in Sanskrit and
"e" that "palatalized" first before disappearing can be credibly
challenged by the hypothesis that a i u spread to a e i o u due to
sloppy speech and that there was no palatalization in Satem but
velarization in the highly innovative "Kentum".

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<f9004082-c873-439c...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

"anal...@hotmail.com" <anal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The entire edifice based on compression of PIE vowels in Sanskrit and
> "e" that "palatalized" first before disappearing can be credibly
> challenged by the hypothesis that a i u spread to a e i o u due to
> sloppy speech and that there was no palatalization in Satem but
> velarization in the highly innovative "Kentum".

It's only credible to people who know nothing about how real languages
change over time.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mercredi 27 février 2013 02:36:48 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 16, 10:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>

[abusive crap removed]

>
>
> This seems to be a good description of the whole extant PIE enterprise

***

PIE and IE studies are a conspiracy only in your paranoid world.
As any scientific theory, PIE is both a heuristic tool and a synthetic way of describing data.
It's not an "entreprise" nor a ploy.

A.
***

>
> - the end of result of the star-words is just pornography.

***

Smearing muck only means that you have no real substance for an alternative theory.
Which is indeed most probably the case.
You're in scientific and epistemological bankruptcy from the start.

A.
***

You take
>
> words that were actually said by living breathing people and put them
>
> in the sound-algebra mixmaster and out come obscenities that don't
>
> quite sound like human language.

***

why?
There's nothing really shocking in PIE.

A.
***

>
>
>
> Here is an example:

> Sanskrit gardabha and Tocharian kercapo = "ass" - have "sound-
>
> correspondences" that can mechanically lead to the star-word
>
> *gordebhos (said absurdity occurs in many "respectable" sources).

***

It's your opinion that it's done "mechanically".
I wonder why Tocharian should not be considered a loanword in the first place.

A.
***

But
>
> the fact is that it has only two attestations

***

More exactly the word is attested in two languages.

A.
***

and that stalwart
>
> invasionist Asko Parpola has traced the origin to the Indus Valley
>
> Civilization (Tamil kazhutai = "ass" etymologized as "desert-kicker")
>
> and the Sanskrit word is a loan with the "bha" suffix added that often
>
> occurs at the end of animal names (rishabha, rAsabha etc.).

***

A well-known suffix with a lot of attestations in all Nostratic.

A.
***

>
>
>
> And lo and behold we see an example of Sanskrit a-a-a > other IE e-a-
>
> o.

***

so what?

A.
***

>
>
>
> The entire edifice based on compression of PIE vowels in Sanskrit and
>
> "e" that "palatalized" first before disappearing can be credibly

***

no it cannot.

The conclusion that e a o & represents the original situation, which Indo-Iranian changed into a aa i, was reached 160 years ago. And this conclusion is irreversible.

A.
***

>
> challenged by the hypothesis that a i u spread to a e i o u due to
>
> sloppy speech and that there was no palatalization in Satem but
>
> velarization in the highly innovative "Kentum".

***

The sheer idea that the direction of change could be s' > k^, k > k or kw with unknown conditioning factors, is just deep idiocy.
It's clear that the direction is k^ > s', and k / kw fused into k, with *ke > c^a,
It's just obvious that Indo-Iranian cannot be the original situation.

You can't blame PIE for being supposedly unnatural and then make nonsensical claims about Old Indian being the original situation in complete denial of basic facts and commonsense.

If you can't see the obvious, or refuse to accept the obvious, there's a point where discussing with you no longer makes any sense.
If you persist in believing that windmills are dragons then you're either a loonie or your name is Don Quixote. Normal people see that windmills are not dragons, even when the words windmill and dragon are applied liberally to referents in the real world that are not usually described as windmills or dragons.

A.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 27, 2:53 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 février 2013 02:36:48 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :> On Feb 16, 10:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> [abusive crap removed]
>
> > This seems to be a good description of the whole extant PIE enterprise
>
> ***
>
> PIE and IE studies are a conspiracy only in your paranoid world.
> As any scientific theory, PIE is both a heuristic tool and a synthetic way of describing data.
> It's not an "entreprise" nor a ploy.
>
> A.

You missed a bit of sarcasm.

> ***
>
>
>
> > - the end of result of the star-words is just pornography.
>
> ***
>
> Smearing muck only means that you have no real substance for an alternative theory.
> Which is indeed most probably the case.
> You're in scientific and epistemological bankruptcy from the start.
>
> A.
> ***
>

No - I am keeping stuff back that I hope to publish one of these days.

Nope. The idiocy is :"sound change 101" or "articulatory ease" (if
only articulatory ease mattered, there wouldn't be spoken language).
But even boilerplate uses "analogy" when articulatory ease cannot be
invoked.

My theory is that back in the early days "sh" was a sophisticated
sound unknown to Europeans, Anatolians et al. which got changed to
various ways from the Sanskrit original. It had become commonplace by
the time of Latin > Romance and thats why the k > s,sh etc. is
considered a sacred cow. It is just a change that happened in that
instance - thats all.

There is another theory that "Kentum" remodeled the sounds after the
back ablaut vowel "o" (making it unncessary to remember sibilants etc
before "e' and velars before "o").

> It's clear that the direction is k^ > s', and k / kw fused into k, with *ke > c^a,
> It's just obvious that Indo-Iranian cannot be the original situation.
>
> You can't blame PIE for being supposedly unnatural and then make nonsensical claims about Old Indian being the original situation in complete denial of basic facts and commonsense.
>
> If you can't see the obvious, or refuse to accept the obvious, there's a point where discussing with you no longer makes any sense.
> If you persist in believing that windmills are dragons then you're either a loonie or your name is Don Quixote. Normal people see that windmills are not dragons, even when the words windmill and dragon are applied liberally to referents in the real world that are not usually described as windmills or dragons.
>
> A.

But I think I have found clinching evidence that the star-word PIE is
a myth. Let us take two known cases of language devolution Sanskrit >
NIA and Latin > Romance.

At least in the Sanskrit case - SOME WORDS CAME THROUGH UNCHANGED.
Thousands of words are written exactly the same way in Sanskrit and
Hindi - but most are said differently in Hindi since the "inherent a"
of Sanskrit is usually not pronounced. But in some cases, the words
are exactly the same, such as, - अर्थात् [arthAt] "that is to say" ,
माता [mAtA] ("mother" - somewhat stiff and formal in Hindi compared
to mA(n) but definitely a Hindi word). All daughter languages
"borrow" from the parent - but I am not talking about that.

I am sure there are Latin words that have survived in Romance intact
(not just talking about things like "cogito ergo sum" which can be
considered English also).

But it seems certain that, especially with Laryngeals of unknown sound
value and glottalics and syllabic nasals etc. - THERE ISNT ONE PIE
STAR WORD that has come through unchanged to be attested.

This settles the dispute that exists even among practitioners - the
star words are only formulas - they have no relationship whatsoever to
the speech of a real people somewhere at some point in time.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<255107ac-6a92-42b5...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

"anal...@hotmail.com" <anal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Nope. The idiocy is :"sound change 101" or "articulatory ease" (if
> only articulatory ease mattered, there wouldn't be spoken language).

Your parenthetical is a strawman: Articulatory ease is certainly not
the only factor relevant to language change. Another important factor
is perceptual distinctiveness, which is usually in direct competition
with articulatory ease. Every respectable linguist knows this.

You pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

> But even boilerplate uses "analogy" when articulatory ease cannot be
> invoked.

Incorrect. Analogy is invoked in cases of analogy, which is one type
of sporadic change.

After all this time, you still don't grasp what is arguably the most
fundamental distinction in all of historical linguistics: regular
versus sporadic change.

> My theory is that back in the early days "sh" was a sophisticated
> sound

The fact that you use adjectives like "sophisticated" to describe a
speech sound is further indication that you haven't the foggiest idea
of what you're talking about.

> unknown to Europeans, Anatolians et al. which got changed to
> various ways from the Sanskrit original. It had become commonplace by
> the time of Latin > Romance and thats why the k > s,sh etc. is
> considered a sacred cow. It is just a change that happened in that
> instance - thats all.

No. Mutation of palatal stops to strident coronals is incredibly
common across the world's languages. We see it crop up in language
after language, family after family, time and time again, in
Indo-European (multiple different times in different ways in different
branches in different eras), in Bantu, in Mandarin, in Siouan, and on
and on.

Furthermore, we know *why* it's so common. There are very good,
well-studied, articulatory and perceptual reasons for why a palatal
stop will mutate to a strident coronal. These are facts about the
physics of the articulations involved (how the tongue moves, how the
air is released), and what they sound like, that make this change very
natural and expected.

Your proposed reversal has the opposite properties. We simply don't
find anything like it to any significant degree in the world's
languages, and for very good reason: there's nothing about the way
that the tongue moves, or the way that air flows, or the way that
sound waves are interpreted by the brain, that would make such a shift
likely to occur. It's simply not natural; it's not what our bodies or
what air molecules want to do.

> But I think I have found clinching evidence that the star-word PIE is
> a myth.

That's because you are ignorant of linguistics, of human biology, of
physics, and apparently, of scientific inquiry in general. This is
unsurprising, given that your linguistic opinions are derived directly
from your blind religious beliefs about the holy immutability of
Sanskrit, which you view as a gift from the gods that cannot possibly
have ever had a previous earthly form.

As long as you continue to insist upon the primacy of those religious
beliefs, you will never be capable of understanding the science behind
the evolution of language.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le jeudi 28 février 2013 02:59:39 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 27, 2:53 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 27 février 2013 02:36:48 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :> On Feb 16, 10:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> >
>
> > [abusive crap removed]
>
> >
>
> > > This seems to be a good description of the whole extant PIE enterprise
>
> >
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> > PIE and IE studies are a conspiracy only in your paranoid world.
>
> > As any scientific theory, PIE is both a heuristic tool and a synthetic way of describing data.
>
> > It's not an "entreprise" nor a ploy.
>
> >
>
> > A.
>
>
>
> You missed a bit of sarcasm.
***

No,
I precisely understood you mischaracterize PIE studies.

A.
***

>
>
>
>
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > - the end of result of the star-words is just pornography.
>
> >
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> > Smearing muck only means that you have no real substance for an alternative theory.
>
> > Which is indeed most probably the case.
>
> > You're in scientific and epistemological bankruptcy from the start.
>
> >
>
> > A.
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
>
>
> No - I am keeping stuff back that I hope to publish one of these days.

***

may we know where?

A.

***

> >
>
> > The sheer idea that the direction of change could be s' > k^, k > k or kw with unknown conditioning factors, is just deep idiocy.
>
>
>
> Nope. The idiocy is :"sound change 101" or "articulatory ease" (if
>
> only articulatory ease mattered, there wouldn't be spoken language).
>
> But even boilerplate uses "analogy" when articulatory ease cannot be
>
> invoked.

***

anyway, you are confusing the possible causes of a process with the process itself.

There's no doubt for *logical* reasons that Indo-Iranian cannot represent the original situation. *logical*. Period.
This observation does not need to be explained. Observation and explanation are different issues.

A.
***

>
>
>
> My theory is that back in the early days "sh" was a sophisticated
>
> sound unknown to Europeans, Anatolians et al. which got changed to
>
> various ways from the Sanskrit original.

***

Crypto-racist BS.

A.
***

It had become commonplace by
>
> the time of Latin > Romance and thats why the k > s,sh etc. is
>
> considered a sacred cow. It is just a change that happened in that
>
> instance - thats all.
>
>
>
> There is another theory that "Kentum" remodeled the sounds after the
>
> back ablaut vowel "o" (making it unncessary to remember sibilants etc
>
> before "e' and velars before "o").
>

***

*k^ was changed to s' with **all** vowels
*k^uon > s'van
etc.

You can't explain the distinction between *k and *k^ with neighboring vowels. I've tried that but it does not work.

A.
***

>
>
> > It's clear that the direction is k^ > s', and k / kw fused into k, with *ke > c^a,
>
> > It's just obvious that Indo-Iranian cannot be the original situation.
>
> >
>
> > You can't blame PIE for being supposedly unnatural and then make nonsensical claims about Old Indian being the original situation in complete denial of basic facts and commonsense.
>
> >
>
> > If you can't see the obvious, or refuse to accept the obvious, there's a point where discussing with you no longer makes any sense.
>
> > If you persist in believing that windmills are dragons then you're either a loonie or your name is Don Quixote. Normal people see that windmills are not dragons, even when the words windmill and dragon are applied liberally to referents in the real world that are not usually described as windmills or dragons.
>
> >
>
> > A.
>
>
>
> But I think I have found clinching evidence that the star-word PIE is
>
> a myth.

***

you just do not understand what's going on.
Maybe you should try to read a beginner's book on these topics.

A.
***

Let us take two known cases of language devolution Sanskrit >
>
> NIA and Latin > Romance.
>
>
>
> At least in the Sanskrit case - SOME WORDS CAME THROUGH UNCHANGED.

***

yes, because they are written, people read them and they don't change of course.

A.
***

>
> Thousands of words are written exactly the same way in Sanskrit and
>
> Hindi - but most are said differently in Hindi since the "inherent a"
>
> of Sanskrit is usually not pronounced. But in some cases, the words
>
> are exactly the same, such as, - अर्थात् [arthAt] "that is to say" ,
>
> माता [mAtA] ("mother" - somewhat stiff and formal in Hindi compared
>
> to mA(n) but definitely a Hindi word). All daughter languages
>
> "borrow" from the parent - but I am not talking about that.
>
>
>
> I am sure there are Latin words that have survived in Romance intact
>
> (not just talking about things like "cogito ergo sum" which can be
>
> considered English also).
>

***

yes you are.

A.
***

>
>
> But it seems certain that, especially with Laryngeals of unknown sound
>
> value and glottalics and syllabic nasals etc. - THERE ISNT ONE PIE
>
> STAR WORD that has come through unchanged to be attested.
>

***

i can think of
PIE *me > Italian me
PIE *te > Italian te

There's certainly more.

A.
***

>
>
> This settles the dispute that exists even among practitioners - the
>
> star words are only formulas -

***

no,
they precisely are formulas, that's their virtue and value,
which means that they synthesize the structural features embedded in the data provided by Indo-European languages.

A.
***

they have no relationship whatsoever to
>
> the speech of a real people somewhere at some point in time.

***

that's your decree.

The problem is that you don't understand, nor see, nor accept seeing, the links between these "formulas" and actual data.
You believe these "formulas" are plucked from the air thru some capricious whim, which is precisely not the case.

You don't understand the whole method:
1. sorting out data
2. comparing data
3. elucidation of sound correspondences
4. creation of "formulas"
5. choice of an adequate proto-system
6. fine tuning of the formulas into realistic proto-words

A.
***

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 28, 4:35 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le jeudi 28 février 2013 02:59:39 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 2:53 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Le mercredi 27 février 2013 02:36:48 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :> On Feb 16, 10:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
>

> i can think of
> PIE *me > Italian me
> PIE *te > Italian te
>
> There's certainly more.
>
> A.
> ***

I'd like to see a star word in canonical format *CeC *CeCC etc.
reflected "as is" in a first -generation IE language (Greek, Latin,
Hittite, Tocharian etc.) with more or less the same meaning.

This may be coincidence - Latin might be different from the star-word
and Italian changed it back purely coincidentally.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 27, 11:29 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <255107ac-6a92-42b5-9b22-f8f108d19...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nope.  The idiocy is :"sound change 101" or "articulatory ease" (if
> > only articulatory ease mattered, there wouldn't be spoken language).
>
> Your parenthetical is a strawman: Articulatory ease is certainly not
> the only factor relevant to language change.  Another important factor
> is perceptual distinctiveness, which is usually in direct competition
> with articulatory ease.  Every respectable linguist knows this.
>
> You pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
>
> > But even boilerplate uses "analogy" when articulatory ease cannot be
> > invoked.
>
> Incorrect.  Analogy is invoked in cases of analogy, which is one type
> of sporadic change.
>
> After all this time, you still don't grasp what is arguably the most
> fundamental distinction in all of historical linguistics: regular
> versus sporadic change.

Are you saying that phonetically conditioned change is "regular" and
analogic change "irregular"?

Even assuming you can tell the two apart (which in itself is not
always easy) - this is not always true.

http://prosody.beckman.illinois.edu/jihualde/objects/pubs/Hualde_Bqanalogy3.pdf

I can tell from personal experience - the replacement of native[ph] by
[f] by many Hindi speakers due to the ubiquitousness of English and
its prestige - the change may well be complete in a few generations
and would look regular.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le jeudi 28 février 2013 11:25:14 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 28, 4:35 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le jeudi 28 février 2013 02:59:39 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Feb 27, 2:53 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Le mercredi 27 février 2013 02:36:48 UTC+1, anal...@hotmail.com a écrit :> On Feb 16, 10:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > i can think of
>
> > PIE *me > Italian me
>
> > PIE *te > Italian te
>
> >
>
> > There's certainly more.
>
> >
>
> > A.
>
> > ***
>
>
>
> I'd like to see a star word in canonical format *CeC *CeCC etc.
>
> reflected "as is" in a first -generation IE language (Greek, Latin,
>
> Hittite, Tocharian etc.) with more or less the same meaning.

***

They are not "first-generation",
this prerequisite is irrelevant and that word is not far from meaningless in the first place.

serpent "crawling (creature)"
Acc. *serp-n.t-m. > latin serpentem > Italian serpente
limited changes.
And showing no tendency to change.

*domos house
*domos > Latin domus "house" > Italian domo "dome".
Semantic change.

*tegu-laH "tile, something that covers"
*tegulaH > Latin tegula > Italian tegola
very limited change.

*tegumn.tom "something that covers, tegument"
*tegum.ntom > Latin tegumentum > Italian tegumento
very limited change.

As you can see, plenty of long words have hardly changed for millenniums.
Their PIE structure is still transparent.

Besides these words make it obvious that e and o were not the same phoneme in the original language.

A.
***

[Trond Engen]

anal...@hotmail.com:

> On Feb 27, 11:29 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <255107ac-6a92-42b5-9b22-f8f108d19...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. The idiocy is :"sound change 101" or "articulatory ease" (if
>>> only articulatory ease mattered, there wouldn't be spoken language).
>>
>> Your parenthetical is a strawman: Articulatory ease is certainly not
>> the only factor relevant to language change. Another important
>> factor is perceptual distinctiveness, which is usually in direct
>> competition with articulatory ease. Every respectable linguist
>> knows this.
>>
>> You pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
>>
>>> But even boilerplate uses "analogy" when articulatory ease cannot be
>>> invoked.
>>
>> Incorrect. Analogy is invoked in cases of analogy, which is one type
>> of sporadic change.
>>
>> After all this time, you still don't grasp what is arguably the most
>> fundamental distinction in all of historical linguistics: regular
>> versus sporadic change.
>
> Are you saying that phonetically conditioned change is "regular" and
> analogic change "irregular"?

No, he's saying that some changes happen through processes working on
whole sets, others are simple, random mistakes that happen to take hold,
especially in rare words or forms. An analogical remodeling of a
grammatical paradigm is a regular change, while a phonologically
conditioned metathesis is (usually) irregular.

> Even assuming you can tell the two apart (which in itself is not
> always easy) - this is not always true.
>
> http://prosody.beckman.illinois.edu/jihualde/objects/pubs/Hualde_Bqanalogy3.pdf

I haven't read your link yet, but generally speaking, that's no
surprise. There's bound to be a grey area between them, moving around
but generally shrinking as scientitific progress goes on. Much of
historical linguistics has been about discovering regularities,
conditioning factors, behind apparent irregularities.

> I can tell from personal experience - the replacement of native[ph]
> by [f] by many Hindi speakers due to the ubiquitousness of English
> and its prestige - the change may well be complete in a few
> generations and would look regular.

Then it wouldn't _look_ regular, it would _be_ regular, and it would be
noted by historical linguists that it happened in a period when Indian
languages were influenced by a prestigious English superstrate. And,
anyway, phonological convergence between languages in close contact is
well known. Also from India.

--
Trond Engen