| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: Re: Magdalenian words and compounds 2006/7 |
 |
|
On Jul 30, 6:26 pm, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 3:46 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Du, Bub, du hast es missverstanden. Es kommt nicht auf die Argumente
an, sondern auf die Beweise. Und du hast überhaupt keine Beweise, nur
das, was dir eingefallen ist. Diese Magdalenische Sprache ist dir nur
so eingefallen, oder du hast es dir aus den Fingern gesaugt. Es gibt
keine objektiven Beweise für die Existenz des Magdalenischen, nur so
etwas, was du selbst gefälscht hast.
I used German in order to be able to call Franz "du", but I can put
that in English too:arguments don>t count in science, if there is no
evidence, and as we all know, the only evidence for the existence of
the Magdalenian language are Franz>s own armchair ramblings. The only
evidence there is, does not exist outside the caved-in tunnels of his
own diseased mind.
Having attended three universities apparently hollowed out your
mind. You can>t disprove my reconstructions and compounds,
and so I am entitled to go on with my work.
[/quote]
You have again misunderstood your position, boy. You have to provide
the evidence. You have to prove your Magdalenian, I don>t need to
disprove it. "Probatio incumbet ei, quid affirmat, non ei, quid
negat", as the medievals said.
The aboe is one
[quote]more example of your stilted German, nobody talks and writes
that way,
[/quote]
I really don>t think you are in any position to find fault with my
German, boy. To start with you said my German was ungrammatical, but
when you couldn>t point out the errors, you started to call it
stilted. You haven>t specified yet, what makes it stilted.
Oh, of course, I don>t write the "Der Gangsterboss wurde von den Boys
der anderen Gang gekidnappt und gekillt" sort of German. That>s why
you find it stilted.
[quote]and apparently your Irish is equally stilted.
[/quote]
You are welcome to point out the stylistical inadequacies in my Irish.
Two of my erotic novellas and my short novel for young readers are due
for publication next year.. I will send you a copy then.
Your problem
[quote]is that you got no ideas and nothing to say,
[/quote]
What makes you think that science is about ideas? Science is about
discovery. You have discovered nothing that would exist outside your
own mind.
therefore you must
[quote]kill ideas, taking revenge on those who got a lot to say.
[/quote]
Franz, you haven>t got much to say actually. You repeat the same
obsessions year in, year out. You are obstinate, arrogant, rude, and
disagreeable. If you really had "got a lot to say", people would be
interested in your writings even if you hadn>t got everything right.
But you haven>t. We have heard all your stories already and seen there
is not much meat in them. We have found out that you are prone to
personal attacks and downright insolence. You are both ignorant and
unwilling to learn, and moreover, you are a singularly unpleasant
human being. You have no redeeming features at all.
Why
[quote]can>t you just keep away from me?
[/quote]
That is a good question. You are just another nobody with crackpot
ideas. It>s no use arguing with you.
I really don>t write for you,
[quote]as I told you many times.
[/quote]
That>s quite true. You write for nobody. Nobody takes you seriously.
And if someone does, she should see a doctor.
You are the confessing main killrater
[quote]of mine, and you developed an obsession about me.
[/quote]
Actually, I haven>t bothered to killrate you for ages. I see there are
other people doing it these days. That is a very good thing.
Leave me
[quote]in peace, and go for something real in life.
[/quote]
Something as "real" as your pathetic "ideas"? I don>t think so.
You should see, that your "ideas" are not ideas at all, they are just
your petty obsessions you keep on hammering about year in, year out. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 10:27 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 8:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:45 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:29 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:45 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:36 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 28, 11:52 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
On Jul 28, 3:49 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
There is no such thing as "reduction" for Sanskrit to be "subjected
to." If Sanskrit has not changed since the sacred texts were canonized
some 2000 - 2500 years ago, of which there is no doubt, it is because
it has not been a spoken language since then.
But it has changed considerably, according to authorities like Coulson.
It changed in the areas that weren>t covered by Panini. Extremely long
compounds and participial constructions replacing finite past forms
weren>t common 2000 to 2500 years ago.
Not between the canonization of the texts (which happened centuries
before they were first written down) and now, though. When were these
extremely long compounds and participials being created?
As far as I know (which isn>t that much), in the first millennium CE, long
after the classical Epics were created.
The long compounds are not a language change - a style change
analogous to Bach to Beethoven,
Sanskrit lost it raison-d>etre as a living language once the Vedas,
Upanishads, Mahakavyas etc. had been composed and fixed. Like a
heavyweight champion that refuses to retire in his prime, it lived on
afterwards for a while in "secular sanskrit" literature and absorbed
elements from the Prakirts which by this time had started producing
creative works of their own.
The participial constructions are probably borrowings from Prakrits.
So "absorbing elements" and "borrowing" from Prakrits are recognized
by you, but normal language change in the living language isn>t?-
I keep trying to point out to you that Sanskrit was probably never
used for commonplace transactions and that being mostly used for
chanting (probably in chorus), religious rites and metaphysical
treatises for an esoteric audience would not subject it to the
neogrammarian sound changes - but you don>t want to understand it.
Becase no language in the entire history of humanity has such a
history.
Sez you.
And everyone else who has ever studied language seriously.
You obviously have no citation for this - since I think I am the first
to explicitly point out that Sanskrit might never have been used as a
spoken prose language for everyday activity.
[/quote]
That would be because it>s self-evidently asinine.
[quote]Where, in your imagination, did Sanskrit come from? Are you going to
tell me Ganesh wrote it with his tooth?
Short attention span?
It was created as a necessity to express the Vedic hymns with the
appropriate degree of gravitas (ha ha) from the raw material of Proto-
prakirt - the dialect of the so called PIE that was prevalent in the
ArYAvarta-SaptaSaindhava area at that time.
Sorry, the passive voice won>t do. "It was created ..." provides no
information at all.
The standard model says that PIIr came to India already possessing
lexical and grammatical elements to which neogrammatical sound changes
can be applied to derive Sanskrit.
[/quote]
Try learning what "Neogrammarian" means. Sound changes do not "apply"
to (something or other).
[quote]If I ask where did PIIr get its grammar from - the answer would be
PIE. And if I ask where did PIE get its grammar from - "from PrePIE".
But eventually you have to "change the subject" as below
[/quote]
No, eventually (maybe 150,000 years ago) you get to the origins of
human language, on which there is much speculation.
[quote]start quote:
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is
exactly of the same nature as the Hindu>s view, that the world rested
upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when
they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we
change the subject."
end quote.
or say that it was creatively developed by the speakers.
I am simply crediting the the development of PIE grammar to the people
who attestedly used it for the first time to such breathtaking
effect. I think they totally invented a grammar to go on top of
Proto-Prakirt and also euphonized its sounds - and "tat jaNasa
samskritham" (lets see if anybody picks up on this inside joke).
[/quote]
It doesn>t matter when something is first attested. Do you think there
was no Albanian before 1700? That there was no Kwakiutl before 1890?
Where do you think "Proto-Prakrit" came from?
[quote]So PIE scholarship has to be turned on it s head with respect to
Sanskirt- instead of looking for "natural" sound changes that might
have turned an attested proto-language into a group of related
attested languages - the PIE from which Greek etc. can be derived has
to be derived as a lenition of Sanskrit.
But yes - the Prakrits probably predated Sanskrit and were always full
of vigor and once Sankrit was exhausted from creating the basis of
Hinduism, the Prakrits pretty much took over and Sanskrit carried
forward its momentum as a medium for creative works a little bit
longer than it should have.
Vedic is from ca. 1500 BCE. The Prakrits are from 1000 years later.-
Maybe once you>ve prepared your 1000-page monograph showing exactly
how this bizarre scheme of yours operated, the people who know what
they>re talking about will be able to refute it item by item. But long
before you get to page 50, you will have discovered how ridiculous it
is.
This is just anti-amateur bias.
[/quote]
Then stop talking like an amateur, and DO WHAT YOU CLAIM.
[quote]Toby Griffen (and I think the glottalists) say the exact opposite of
the standard model as to the direction of Grimm>s law sound changes -
why aren>t they "bizarre" ?
[/quote]
Since you clearly don>t know what Grimm>s Law says or means, you are
clearly in no position to understand either their position or what it
means.
[quote]Note that you have not offered a single datum in support.-
Not true. I have already undermined the supposed lynchpin of the
dethronement of Sanskrit as practically a dialect of PIE - Grassman>s
Law - by suggesting that what happened in "chakAra" etc. was not
"palaltalization but "change to a palatal" (thanks Nathan for the
terminology) for euphony. I have also given examples of sanskrit
changing a palatal to a velar for euphony.
[/quote]
"Euphony" is an excuse used by 19th-century philologists to account
for things they could not yet explain.
[quote]I don>t know about a 800 page book - but I think I should be able to
come up with 50-100 pages of text and however many pages of data to
support my viewpoint.
[/quote]
Then do it, and shut up until you do. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 12:57 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 10:27 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:45 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:29 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 8:45 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:36 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 28, 11:52 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
On Jul 28, 3:49 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
There is no such thing as "reduction" for Sanskrit to be "subjected
to." If Sanskrit has not changed since the sacred texts were canonized
some 2000 - 2500 years ago, of which there is no doubt, it is because
it has not been a spoken language since then.
But it has changed considerably, according to authorities like Coulson.
It changed in the areas that weren>t covered by Panini.. Extremely long
compounds and participial constructions replacing finite past forms
weren>t common 2000 to 2500 years ago.
Not between the canonization of the texts (which happened centuries
before they were first written down) and now, though. When were these
extremely long compounds and participials being created?
As far as I know (which isn>t that much), in the first millennium CE, long
after the classical Epics were created.
The long compounds are not a language change - a style change
analogous to Bach to Beethoven,
Sanskrit lost it raison-d>etre as a living language once the Vedas,
Upanishads, Mahakavyas etc. had been composed and fixed. Like a
heavyweight champion that refuses to retire in his prime, it lived on
afterwards for a while in "secular sanskrit" literature and absorbed
elements from the Prakirts which by this time had started producing
creative works of their own.
The participial constructions are probably borrowings from Prakrits.
So "absorbing elements" and "borrowing" from Prakrits are recognized
by you, but normal language change in the living language isn>t?-
I keep trying to point out to you that Sanskrit was probably never
used for commonplace transactions and that being mostly used for
chanting (probably in chorus), religious rites and metaphysical
treatises for an esoteric audience would not subject it to the
neogrammarian sound changes - but you don>t want to understand it.
Becase no language in the entire history of humanity has such a
history.
Sez you.
And everyone else who has ever studied language seriously.
You obviously have no citation for this - since I think I am the first
to explicitly point out that Sanskrit might never have been used as a
spoken prose language for everyday activity.
That would be because it>s self-evidently asinine.
[/quote]
Its very simple - either its so asinine that nobody would even think
of dismissing it - in which case you were not truthful when you wrote
"and everyome else ..seriously".
If it has been dismissed by others, then you should be able to cite
somebody to that effect.
[quote]
Where, in your imagination, did Sanskrit come from? Are you going to
tell me Ganesh wrote it with his tooth?
Short attention span?
It was created as a necessity to express the Vedic hymns with the
appropriate degree of gravitas (ha ha) from the raw material of Proto-
prakirt - the dialect of the so called PIE that was prevalent in the
ArYAvarta-SaptaSaindhava area at that time.
Sorry, the passive voice won>t do. "It was created ..." provides no
information at all.
The standard model says that PIIr came to India already possessing
lexical and grammatical elements to which neogrammatical sound changes
can be applied to derive Sanskrit.
Try learning what "Neogrammarian" means. Sound changes do not "apply"
to (something or other).
[/quote]
do you know what "neogrammarian means" ? yes they do. Do some
googling and you will find this usage is reasonably common.
[quote]
If I ask where did PIIr get its grammar from - the answer would be
PIE. And if I ask where did PIE get its grammar from - "from PrePIE"..
But eventually you have to "change the subject" as below
No, eventually (maybe 150,000 years ago) you get to the origins of
human language, on which there is much speculation.
[/quote]
Thats absurd. how has that reply circumvented the difficulty of every
cause requiring a previous cause?
My question is about the complexity of Sanskrit grammar - did that
arise in the Sapta-Saindhava or was the alleged language that came in
to India and Iran already have it?
[quote]
start quote:
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is
exactly of the same nature as the Hindu>s view, that the world rested
upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when
they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we
change the subject."
end quote.
or say that it was creatively developed by the speakers.
I am simply crediting the the development of PIE grammar to the people
who attestedly used it for the first time to such breathtaking
effect. I think they totally invented a grammar to go on top of
Proto-Prakirt and also euphonized its sounds - and "tat jaNasa
samskritham" (lets see if anybody picks up on this inside joke).
It doesn>t matter when something is first attested. Do you think there
was no Albanian before 1700? That there was no Kwakiutl before 1890?
[/quote]
Fine. so are you asserting that the language that allegedly came into
India/iran already had something close to Skt grammar? To postulate a
language from which Sanskrit emerged due to mechanical processes flies
in the face of parsimonious theorizing (that would apply to Greek and
Latin too, but once you assume Sanskrit arose through a creative
generation process from Proto-prakirt, then it would be parsimonious
to explain greek and latin largely from proto-prakirt).
[quote]
Where do you think "Proto-Prakrit" came from?
[/quote]
I don>t know and its not relevant for my theory. I>ll reconstruct it
and if greek etc and the later prakirts come out of through standard
methods, that would be the justification.
[quote]
So PIE scholarship has to be turned on it s head with respect to
Sanskirt- instead of looking for "natural" sound changes that might
have turned an attested proto-language into a group of related
attested languages - the PIE from which Greek etc. can be derived has
to be derived as a lenition of Sanskrit.
But yes - the Prakrits probably predated Sanskrit and were always full
of vigor and once Sankrit was exhausted from creating the basis of
Hinduism, the Prakrits pretty much took over and Sanskrit carried
forward its momentum as a medium for creative works a little bit
longer than it should have.
Vedic is from ca. 1500 BCE. The Prakrits are from 1000 years later.-
Maybe once you>ve prepared your 1000-page monograph showing exactly
how this bizarre scheme of yours operated, the people who know what
they>re talking about will be able to refute it item by item. But long
before you get to page 50, you will have discovered how ridiculous it
is.
This is just anti-amateur bias.
Then stop talking like an amateur, and DO WHAT YOU CLAIM.
Toby Griffen (and I think the glottalists) say the exact opposite of
the standard model as to the direction of Grimm>s law sound changes -
why aren>t they "bizarre" ?
Since you clearly don>t know what Grimm>s Law says or means, you are
clearly in no position to understand either their position or what it
means.
[/quote]
Its unbelievable how many times you have exhibited apparent ignorance
of Toby Griffen>s work on "germano-european". Since Toby Griffen has
a website - you probbaly do know what he is proposing and you don>t
want to face it since it exposes the astoundingly glaring
contradiction of a reputable scholar claiming that what started off
PIE theory (Grimm>s law sound changes from PIE to proto-Germanic ) had
the direction of the sound changes in reverse.
[quote]
Note that you have not offered a single datum in support.-
Not true. I have already undermined the supposed lynchpin of the
dethronement of Sanskrit as practically a dialect of PIE - Grassman>s
Law - by suggesting that what happened in "chakAra" etc. was not
"palaltalization but "change to a palatal" (thanks Nathan for the
terminology) for euphony. I have also given examples of sanskrit
changing a palatal to a velar for euphony.
"Euphony" is an excuse used by 19th-century philologists to account
for things they could not yet explain.
I don>t know about a 800 page book - but I think I should be able to
come up with 50-100 pages of text and however many pages of data to
support my viewpoint.
Then do it, and shut up until you do.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 1:43 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 12:57 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:27 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:45 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:29 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
I keep trying to point out to you that Sanskrit was probably never
used for commonplace transactions and that being mostly used for
chanting (probably in chorus), religious rites and metaphysical
treatises for an esoteric audience would not subject it to the
neogrammarian sound changes - but you don>t want to understand it.
Becase no language in the entire history of humanity has such a
history.
Sez you.
And everyone else who has ever studied language seriously.
You obviously have no citation for this - since I think I am the first
to explicitly point out that Sanskrit might never have been used as a
spoken prose language for everyday activity.
That would be because it>s self-evidently asinine.
Its very simple - either its so asinine that nobody would even think
of dismissing it - in which case you were not truthful when you wrote
"and everyome else ..seriously".
[/quote]
You have confused yourself (again). What I, and every other linguist
in the world, "sez," is that no human language has ever existed that
was not subject to sound change. (There>s no such thing as
"neogrammarian sound changes," no matter what you may find by googling
crackpot websites.) And every other kind of language change.
[quote]If it has been dismissed by others, then you should be able to cite
somebody to that effect.
[/quote]
The facts of language change were soon recognized when non-European
and non-Classical languages began to be studied, first in Africa (see
the work of Bleeck, Lepsius, and many others), then in India (I>m sure
you have heard of Caldwell), then in North America (Boas, Kroeber, and
their 20th-century successors): Indo-European was soon seen to be an
ordinary language family that follows all the same principles of human
language as any other family.
The main difference from almost all the others is that we happen to
have historical records of some languages from IE.
[quote]Where, in your imagination, did Sanskrit come from? Are you going to
tell me Ganesh wrote it with his tooth?
Short attention span?
It was created as a necessity to express the Vedic hymns with the
appropriate degree of gravitas (ha ha) from the raw material of Proto-
prakirt - the dialect of the so called PIE that was prevalent in the
ArYAvarta-SaptaSaindhava area at that time.
Sorry, the passive voice won>t do. "It was created ..." provides no
information at all.
The standard model says that PIIr came to India already possessing
lexical and grammatical elements to which neogrammatical sound changes
can be applied to derive Sanskrit.
Try learning what "Neogrammarian" means. Sound changes do not "apply"
to (something or other).
do you know what "neogrammarian means" ?
[/quote]
Yes, I do. I have even read some of the articles in which the
neogrammarian principles were first set forth. You don>t, and you
haven>t.
[quote]yes they do. Do some
googling and you will find this usage is reasonably common.
[/quote]
I don>t care what you find by googling. "Sound changes" do not
"apply." Language changes, and it changes in highly regular, albeit
unpredictable, ways.
[quote]If I ask where did PIIr get its grammar from - the answer would be
PIE. And if I ask where did PIE get its grammar from - "from PrePIE".
But eventually you have to "change the subject" as below
No, eventually (maybe 150,000 years ago) you get to the origins of
human language, on which there is much speculation.
Thats absurd. how has that reply circumvented the difficulty of every
cause requiring a previous cause?
[/quote]
That appears to be a religious statement.
[quote]My question is about the complexity of Sanskrit grammar - did that
arise in the Sapta-Saindhava or was the alleged language that came in
to India and Iran already have it?
[/quote]
What makes you think Sanskrit is any more "complex" than any other
human language?
[quote]or say that it was creatively developed by the speakers.
I am simply crediting the the development of PIE grammar to the people
who attestedly used it for the first time to such breathtaking
effect. I think they totally invented a grammar to go on top of
Proto-Prakirt and also euphonized its sounds - and "tat jaNasa
samskritham" (lets see if anybody picks up on this inside joke).
It doesn>t matter when something is first attested. Do you think there
was no Albanian before 1700? That there was no Kwakiutl before 1890?
Fine. so are you asserting that the language that allegedly came into
India/iran already had something close to Skt grammar? To postulate a
language from which Sanskrit emerged due to mechanical processes flies
in the face of parsimonious theorizing (that would apply to Greek and
Latin too, but once you assume Sanskrit arose through a creative
generation process from Proto-prakirt, then it would be parsimonious
to explain greek and latin largely from proto-prakirt).
[/quote]
Of course the last immediate ancestor of Sanskrit was almost identical
to Sanskrit!
In fact, we can get a very good idea of what that last immediate
ancestor looked like by comparing Vedic and Old Avestan, since they
are so similar that they were probably mutually intelligible: what
they have in common was what their immediate ancestor was like.
[quote]Where do you think "Proto-Prakrit" came from?
I don>t know and its not relevant for my theory. I>ll reconstruct it
and if greek etc and the later prakirts come out of through standard
methods, that would be the justification.
[/quote]
If your theory can>t even account for the origin of the languages that
are most closely related to Sanskrit, then it>s a pretty lousy, and
useless, theory.
[quote]Maybe once you>ve prepared your 1000-page monograph showing exactly
how this bizarre scheme of yours operated, the people who know what
they>re talking about will be able to refute it item by item. But long
before you get to page 50, you will have discovered how ridiculous it
is.
This is just anti-amateur bias.
Then stop talking like an amateur, and DO WHAT YOU CLAIM.
Toby Griffen (and I think the glottalists) say the exact opposite of
the standard model as to the direction of Grimm>s law sound changes -
why aren>t they "bizarre" ?
Since you clearly don>t know what Grimm>s Law says or means, you are
clearly in no position to understand either their position or what it
means.
Its unbelievable how many times you have exhibited apparent ignorance
of Toby Griffen>s work on "germano-european". Since Toby Griffen has
a website - you probbaly do know what he is proposing and you don>t
want to face it since it exposes the astoundingly glaring
contradiction of a reputable scholar claiming that what started off
PIE theory (Grimm>s law sound changes from PIE to proto-Germanic ) had
the direction of the sound changes in reverse.
[/quote]
I know Toby Griffen. We have presented papers at the same meeting
several times. Toby Griffen is a Celticist. He is not widely (or at
all?) cited in the specialist literature. I have no idea what his
"germano-european" is. I have no reason to suppose that his maverick
view -- if you have in fact characterized it accurately -- has found
any acceptance whatsoever.
The "glottalic theory" had some vogue twenty years ago, but it was
soon shown to create far more complications than it resolved.
[quote]Note that you have not offered a single datum in support.-
Not true. I have already undermined the supposed lynchpin of the
dethronement of Sanskrit as practically a dialect of PIE - Grassman>s
Law - by suggesting that what happened in "chakAra" etc. was not
"palaltalization but "change to a palatal" (thanks Nathan for the
terminology) for euphony. I have also given examples of sanskrit
changing a palatal to a velar for euphony.
"Euphony" is an excuse used by 19th-century philologists to account
for things they could not yet explain.
I don>t know about a 800 page book - but I think I should be able to
come up with 50-100 pages of text and however many pages of data to
support my viewpoint.
Then do it, and shut up until you do.
[/quote]
Let us know when you>ve submitted it to a journal that publishes Indo-
European studies. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 4:59 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 1:43 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:57 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:27 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:45 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:29 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
I keep trying to point out to you that Sanskrit was probably never
used for commonplace transactions and that being mostly used for
chanting (probably in chorus), religious rites and metaphysical
treatises for an esoteric audience would not subject it to the
neogrammarian sound changes - but you don>t want to understand it.
Becase no language in the entire history of humanity has such a
history.
Sez you.
And everyone else who has ever studied language seriously.
You obviously have no citation for this - since I think I am the first
to explicitly point out that Sanskrit might never have been used as a
spoken prose language for everyday activity.
That would be because it>s self-evidently asinine.
Its very simple - either its so asinine that nobody would even think
of dismissing it - in which case you were not truthful when you wrote
"and everyome else ..seriously".
You have confused yourself (again).
[/quote]
actually you are persisting with your straw-man argument.
"neo-grammarian sound change" as a short cut to expresss "sound
changes as propounded by the neogrammarians" is totally unremarkable.
What I, and every other linguist
[quote]in the world, "sez," is that no human language has ever existed that
was not subject to sound change. (There>s no such thing as
"neogrammarian sound changes," no matter what you may find by googling
crackpot websites.) And every other kind of language change.
[/quote]
straw man. Whether you agree or not - I am making a well-defined
claim - a conditioning factor (gra__as :-)) that obtained (and still
obtains) during most usage of sanskrit stopped neogrammarian sound
changes from happening to it.
Here is a way to test this and a sure hist ling phd awaits whoever
does it:
Get hold of sound recordings over a span of time (I guess they go
back to the beginnings of the 20th century) and measure sound changes
in
(1) the speech of ordinary people
(2) the speech of actors paying bit parts in movies
(3) The speech of leading men in movies (women, I don;t know)
(4) political speeches, in particular, presidential campaign speeches.
(5) News readers
conjecture 1>2>3>4>5 in the degree of neogrammarian sound changes
observable,
[quote]
If it has been dismissed by others, then you should be able to cite
somebody to that effect.
The facts of language change were soon recognized when non-European
and non-Classical languages began to be studied, first in Africa (see
the work of Bleeck, Lepsius, and many others), then in India (I>m sure
you have heard of Caldwell), then in North America (Boas, Kroeber, and
their 20th-century successors): Indo-European was soon seen to be an
ordinary language family that follows all the same principles of human
language as any other family.
The main difference from almost all the others is that we happen to
have historical records of some languages from IE.
Where, in your imagination, did Sanskrit come from? Are you going to
tell me Ganesh wrote it with his tooth?
Short attention span?
It was created as a necessity to express the Vedic hymns with the
appropriate degree of gravitas (ha ha) from the raw material of Proto-
prakirt - the dialect of the so called PIE that was prevalent in the
ArYAvarta-SaptaSaindhava area at that time.
Sorry, the passive voice won>t do. "It was created ..." provides no
information at all.
The standard model says that PIIr came to India already possessing
lexical and grammatical elements to which neogrammatical sound changes
can be applied to derive Sanskrit.
Try learning what "Neogrammarian" means. Sound changes do not "apply"
to (something or other).
do you know what "neogrammarian means" ?
Yes, I do. I have even read some of the articles in which the
neogrammarian principles were first set forth. You don>t, and you
haven>t.
yes they do. Do some
googling and you will find this usage is reasonably common.
I don>t care what you find by googling. "Sound changes" do not
"apply." Language changes, and it changes in highly regular, albeit
unpredictable, ways.
If I ask where did PIIr get its grammar from - the answer would be
PIE. And if I ask where did PIE get its grammar from - "from PrePIE".
But eventually you have to "change the subject" as below
No, eventually (maybe 150,000 years ago) you get to the origins of
human language, on which there is much speculation.
Thats absurd. how has that reply circumvented the difficulty of every
cause requiring a previous cause?
That appears to be a religious statement.
My question is about the complexity of Sanskrit grammar - did that
arise in the Sapta-Saindhava or was the alleged language that came in
to India and Iran already have it?
What makes you think Sanskrit is any more "complex" than any other
human language?
or say that it was creatively developed by the speakers.
I am simply crediting the the development of PIE grammar to the people
who attestedly used it for the first time to such breathtaking
effect. I think they totally invented a grammar to go on top of
Proto-Prakirt and also euphonized its sounds - and "tat jaNasa
samskritham" (lets see if anybody picks up on this inside joke).
It doesn>t matter when something is first attested. Do you think there
was no Albanian before 1700? That there was no Kwakiutl before 1890?
Fine. so are you asserting that the language that allegedly came into
India/iran already had something close to Skt grammar? To postulate a
language from which Sanskrit emerged due to mechanical processes flies
in the face of parsimonious theorizing (that would apply to Greek and
Latin too, but once you assume Sanskrit arose through a creative
generation process from Proto-prakirt, then it would be parsimonious
to explain greek and latin largely from proto-prakirt).
Of course the last immediate ancestor of Sanskrit was almost identical
to Sanskrit!
In fact, we can get a very good idea of what that last immediate
ancestor looked like by comparing Vedic and Old Avestan, since they
are so similar that they were probably mutually intelligible: what
they have in common was what their immediate ancestor was like.
Where do you think "Proto-Prakrit" came from?
I don>t know and its not relevant for my theory. I>ll reconstruct it
and if greek etc and the later prakirts come out of through standard
methods, that would be the justification.
If your theory can>t even account for the origin of the languages that
are most closely related to Sanskrit, then it>s a pretty lousy, and
useless, theory.
Maybe once you>ve prepared your 1000-page monograph showing exactly
how this bizarre scheme of yours operated, the people who know what
they>re talking about will be able to refute it item by item. But long
before you get to page 50, you will have discovered how ridiculous it
is.
This is just anti-amateur bias.
Then stop talking like an amateur, and DO WHAT YOU CLAIM.
Toby Griffen (and I think the glottalists) say the exact opposite of
the standard model as to the direction of Grimm>s law sound changes -
why aren>t they "bizarre" ?
Since you clearly don>t know what Grimm>s Law says or means, you are
clearly in no position to understand either their position or what it
means.
Its unbelievable how many times you have exhibited apparent ignorance
of Toby Griffen>s work on "germano-european". Since Toby Griffen has
a website - you probbaly do know what he is proposing and you don>t
want to face it since it exposes the astoundingly glaring
contradiction of a reputable scholar claiming that what started off
PIE theory (Grimm>s law sound changes from PIE to proto-Germanic ) had
the direction of the sound changes in reverse.
I know Toby Griffen. We have presented papers at the same meeting
several times. Toby Griffen is a Celticist. He is not widely (or at
all?) cited in the specialist literature. I have no idea what his
"germano-european" is. I have no reason to suppose that his maverick
view -- if you have in fact characterized it accurately -- has found
any acceptance whatsoever.
The "glottalic theory" had some vogue twenty years ago, but it was
soon shown to create far more complications than it resolved.
Note that you have not offered a single datum in support.-
Not true. I have already undermined the supposed lynchpin of the
dethronement of Sanskrit as practically a dialect of PIE - Grassman>s
Law - by suggesting that what happened in "chakAra" etc. was not
"palaltalization but "change to a palatal" (thanks Nathan for the
terminology) for euphony. I have also given examples of sanskrit
changing a palatal to a velar for euphony.
"Euphony" is an excuse used by 19th-century philologists to account
for things they could not yet explain.
I don>t know about a 800 page book - but I think I should be able to
come up with 50-100 pages of text and however many pages of data to
support my viewpoint.
Then do it, and shut up until you do.
Let us know when you>ve submitted it to a journal that publishes Indo-
European studies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 7:55 pm, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor...@bla.si> wrote:
[quote]Joachim Pense kikirika:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
Vedic is from ca. 1500 BCE. The Prakrits are from 1000 years later.
The Sanskrit used for metaphysical, mathematical and astronomical
treatises, drama, poems, fairy tales etc. is from yet another 1000 years
later.
Joachim
Metaphysical shouldn>t be mentioned above.
[/quote]
I think he means works like Brahma Sutra Bhashya by Sankaracharya that
were as late as 900 A.D.
[quote]
Also the epics probably come from vedic times and times when Sanskrt was
spoken among people - only in contrast with the Vedas, the folk-stories
weren>t sacred - so they lived among common people and poets, who added
and changed a lot of material, until they were finally written down much
much later.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 5:34 pm, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor...@bla.si> wrote:
[quote]ranjit_math...@yahoo.com pravi:
Consider the Tamil injivEr (ginger root). It is srngavEra in Sanskrit.
The r was originally vocalic (it>s now syllabic), so that may be
respelt as syngavEra, the y indicating (like in transliterations of
the Russian central vowel) that it is a centralized form of i.
Do you mean originaly as in PIE?
[/quote]
That is claimed to be what it originally was in Old Indo Aryan upto
Panini>s Sanskrit. The postulation is that srngavEra is [Ci"Ng@we:*a]
in IPA. Between a palatal sound articulated with the tongue body and
velar nasal (articulation moving from hard palate to soft palate),
what vowel other than [i"] can occur? Of the various possiblities in
that context, does it seem that the one closest to the Dravidian
pronunciation [i] or [i"] is the most likely realization of early
Sanskrit vocalic r?
[quote]When did the change happen?
[/quote]
I don>t know. Current pronunciation of Sanskrit srng is something like
[s;rN] like in "shrink" with the "sh" articulated further forward.
[quote]Maybe could you provide some audio files showing an example of both, vocalic and
syllabic r?
[/quote]
I don>t realize it as vocalic r in any context; only as a syllabic
one, in some contexts. I>m not equipped to record audio right now, but
perhaps in a week or two. Google groups doesn>t let me read your whole
email address with which to send it to you, though. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Adam Funk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Why does some culture>s language become replaced but oth |
|
|
On 2008-07-29, Oliver Cromm wrote:
[quote]* Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
whereas in this dialogue
Alice: What did the cat do?
Bob: Sat.
... I would have expected the answer "Sit." or "It sat.", but not "Sat."
Is "sat" alone common, too?
[/quote]
I think it>s plausible, but I agree that, as you point out, "Sit." and
"It sat." are much more likely.
--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Adam Funk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: Re: Why does some culture>s language become replaced but oth |
|
|
On 2008-07-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]Where does corpus linguistics go?
Computer departments?
[/quote]
Fair point: often it is. But sometimes linguistics and English are in
the same department. NLP tends to be in computer science more often
than in linguistics or modern languages.
On the other hand, a lot of scholars in physics, biology, and
mechanical engineering spend half their research time (or more)
programming computers to analyse data and solve problems, but they
don>t sit in the computer science offices. Disciplinary boundaries
are tricky things these days.
[quote]Its data are preferably from transcribed speech, not from artful
literature.
[/quote]
It depends on what you want to do with the data! The analysis of
texts --- even without seeking to connect them to speech --- can be
worthwhile, interesting, and useful. (Biomedical text mining is a
really useful example.)
I know that it>s a commonly held axiom among pure linguists that
written language is an entirely different thing from language
(=speech) ... but we (who have never spoken to each other) are
communicating using a written medium that *seems* to be based on the
same language faculty as speech, with basically the same syntax and
lexicon (with different frequency distributions, of rcourse).
Otherwise, it>s a most remarkable coincidence that it>s possible to
read "artful literature" (nice expression) out loud so that it sounds
like speech. ;-)
[quote]Note that C. C. Fries>s database for his American English Grammar in
the 1940s was people>s letters to FDR, which he expected represented
just about the only writing most people would do in their life and
would be as close as he could get to a large corpus of spoken English.
[/quote]
I guess he and Markov were doing corpus linguistics without the
computer!
(I have no idea if you>re interested in science fiction, but if so, I
recommend Sean McMullen>s novels that feature human "components" in a
computer.)
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:59:44 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:f7f18a09-8116-4682-b2a4-8ea0735f5263@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Jul 30, 1:43 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
Its unbelievable how many times you have exhibited
apparent ignorance of Toby Griffen>s work on
"germano-european". Since Toby Griffen has a website -
you probbaly do know what he is proposing and you don>t
want to face it since it exposes the astoundingly
glaring contradiction of a reputable scholar claiming
that what started off PIE theory (Grimm>s law sound
changes from PIE to proto-Germanic ) had the direction
of the sound changes in reverse.
I know Toby Griffen. We have presented papers at the same
meeting several times.
Was he ever presenting his decipherment of the Vinc^a
'script'?
[/quote]
No. As I said, he>s a Celticist.
[quote]Toby Griffen is a Celticist. He is not widely (or at all?)
cited in the specialist literature. I have no idea what
his "germano-european" is. I have no reason to suppose
that his maverick view -- if you have in fact
characterized it accurately -- has found any acceptance
whatsoever.
Toby D. Griffen, _Germano-European, Breaking the Sound Law_,
SIU Press, 1988. It appears to have sunk damn' near without
a trace: virtually all of the online mentions are by
booksellers or in bibliographies. The *very* little
information that I could find suggests that he posits a
Germano-European family whose two branches are
Germano-Armenian and IE, so its fate is hardly a surprise.
[/quote]
I>ll continue to believe Eric Hamp, who groups Armenian with Greek. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 8:06 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 4:59 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:43 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:57 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:27 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:20 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:45 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:07 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 6:29 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
I keep trying to point out to you that Sanskrit was probably never
used for commonplace transactions and that being mostly used for
chanting (probably in chorus), religious rites and metaphysical
treatises for an esoteric audience would not subject it to the
neogrammarian sound changes - but you don>t want to understand it.
Becase no language in the entire history of humanity has such a
history.
Sez you.
And everyone else who has ever studied language seriously.
You obviously have no citation for this - since I think I am the first
to explicitly point out that Sanskrit might never have been used as a
spoken prose language for everyday activity.
That would be because it>s self-evidently asinine.
Its very simple - either its so asinine that nobody would even think
of dismissing it - in which case you were not truthful when you wrote
"and everyome else ..seriously".
You have confused yourself (again).
actually you are persisting with your straw-man argument.
[/quote]
Ooh, you learned another epithet! (But not how to use it.)
[quote]"neo-grammarian sound change" as a short cut to expresss "sound
changes as propounded by the neogrammarians" is totally unremarkable.
[/quote]
No such thing. You _really_ ought to find out what "neogrammarian"
means.
[quote]What I, and every other linguist
in the world, "sez," is that no human language has ever existed that
was not subject to sound change. (There>s no such thing as
"neogrammarian sound changes," no matter what you may find by googling
crackpot websites.) And every other kind of language change.
straw man. Whether you agree or not - I am making a well-defined
claim - a conditioning factor (gra__as :-)) that obtained (and still
obtains) during most usage of sanskrit stopped neogrammarian sound
changes from happening to it.
Here is a way to test this and a sure hist ling phd awaits whoever
does it:
Get hold of sound recordings over a span of time (I guess they go
back to the beginnings of the 20th century) and measure sound changes
in
(1) the speech of ordinary people
(2) the speech of actors paying bit parts in movies
(3) The speech of leading men in movies (women, I don;t know)
(4) political speeches, in particular, presidential campaign speeches.
(5) News readers
conjecture 1>2>3>4>5 in the degree of neogrammarian sound changes
observable,
[/quote]
You are incredible naive, stupid, and ignorant. What do you think you
are "proving" by noting that more formal language exhibits less change
than less formal language? (And "neogrammarian sound changes" has
nothing to do with it. If you persist in using such nonsense phrases,
no one will give anything you write a second glance.)
***
If you had no response to anything else I said (not surprisingly,
since it was all extremely commonplace), why did you not simply delete
it? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian M. Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:59:44 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:f7f18a09-8116-4682-b2a4-8ea0735f5263@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote]On Jul 30, 1:43 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]Its unbelievable how many times you have exhibited
apparent ignorance of Toby Griffen>s work on
"germano-european". Since Toby Griffen has a website -
you probbaly do know what he is proposing and you don>t
want to face it since it exposes the astoundingly
glaring contradiction of a reputable scholar claiming
that what started off PIE theory (Grimm>s law sound
changes from PIE to proto-Germanic ) had the direction
of the sound changes in reverse.
I know Toby Griffen. We have presented papers at the same
meeting several times.
[/quote]
Was he ever presenting his decipherment of the Vinc^a
'script'?
[quote]Toby Griffen is a Celticist. He is not widely (or at all?)
cited in the specialist literature. I have no idea what
his "germano-european" is. I have no reason to suppose
that his maverick view -- if you have in fact
characterized it accurately -- has found any acceptance
whatsoever.
[/quote]
Toby D. Griffen, _Germano-European, Breaking the Sound Law_,
SIU Press, 1988. It appears to have sunk damn' near without
a trace: virtually all of the online mentions are by
booksellers or in bibliographies. The *very* little
information that I could find suggests that he posits a
Germano-European family whose two branches are
Germano-Armenian and IE, so its fate is hardly a surprise.
[...]
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 7:36 pm, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor...@bla.si> wrote:
[quote]analys...@hotmail.com pravi:
Even granting the Western obscenity (of the two varieties of Sanskrit)
- why don>t you elucidate for us some changes from vedic to classical
sanskrit that would qualify as ordinary processes of language change ?
The two varieties of Sanskrit are just a model for expressing the major
differences in the natural development of Sanskrit.
More thorough models have 4 or 5 versions of Sanskrit: Vedic Sanskrt;
Sanskrt of the BrAhmaNas, AraNyakas and UpaniSads; Epic Sanskrit,
Classical Sanskrit, (substandard) budhist hybrid Sanskrt.
Those terms don>t mark different languages, but one language evolving
through time and in different social environment (among scholars, among
simple people, etc...)
[/quote]
That>s _really_ going to annoy analys.... Doubtless he>ll just ignore
it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 30, 9:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Toby D. Griffen, he posits a
Germano-European family whose two branches are
Germano-Armenian and IE, so its fate is hardly a surprise.
I>ll continue to believe Eric Hamp, who groups Armenian with Greek.
[/quote]
.... meaning Greek and Armenian came from a proto-Armeno-Greek the
descendants of which included Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian, etc.? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nikolaj
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com pravi:
[quote]Consider the Tamil injivEr (ginger root). It is srngavEra in Sanskrit.
The r was originally vocalic (it>s now syllabic), so that may be
respelt as singavEra, the y indicating (like in transliterations of
the Russian central vowel) that it is a centralized form of i.
[/quote]
Do you mean originaly as in PIE? When did the change happen? Maybe could
you provide some audio files showing an example of both, vocalic and
syllabic r? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
