| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
 |
|
On Jul 30, 11:00 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 9:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
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.
... meaning Greek and Armenian came from a proto-Armeno-Greek the
descendants of which included Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian, etc.?
[/quote]
?????????????????????
Wjat do the Anatolian languages hve to do with either Armenian or
Greek? |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 6:18 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 10:43 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:06 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
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.
Ooh, you learned another epithet! (But not how to use it.)
"neo-grammarian sound change" as a short cut to expresss "sound
changes as propounded by the neogrammarians" is totally unremarkable.
No such thing. You _really_ ought to find out what "neogrammarian"
means.
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,
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?
:-) Thats your inimitably graceless, infantile and petulant way of
conceding my point.
[/quote]
It is not "your point"! Your ego is more immense than your ignorance!
[quote](And "neogrammarian sound changes" has
nothing to do with it.
OK. WHy do you think formal language exhibits less change than less
formal language?
[/quote]
Who said it "exhibits less change"? It just takes it a while to catch
up.
[quote]and how do you define "formal language" ?
[/quote]
Your 5 points are some of the stages on a cline of formality.
[quote]n.b. : try not to weasel out of your "we are never conscious of how we
produce speech" or something to that effect.
[/quote]
Once more, reading (or reciting) a prepared text is not "producing
speech." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Magdalenian words and compounds 2006/7 |
|
|
On Jul 31, 9:31 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 30, 6:44 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Du, Bub, du
boy
Why are you always calling me a boy? Apparently you are
still sort of a boy, Panu Petteri Höglund, an over-ambitious
highschool boy coming to age. Your German tells me that:
exercises in the style of a sixteen-year-old who tries to
impress his teacher, pasting together sentences you
picked up here and there, compensating your lack of
thoughts with rehashed expressions, formalistic, nothing
original. Arthur Schopenhauer said: content without form
is better than form without content, because content will
sooner or later find a proper form, whereas formalism
remains empty.
[/quote]
You have not commented upon the content, boy, only upon the form,
which you use as an excuse not to comment upon the content. Neat and
comfortable, boy.
My wealth in ideas both attracts and
[quote]repels you - if only you had half as many ideas, but you
never will, and so you must deny my ideas, attack me,
spout ad hominems,
[/quote]
You, boy, have been unable to argument for your "ideas" except by
belittling other people>s education, appealing to irrelevant details
and boasting shamelessly. Then you basically accuse me of your own
sins. In elementary psychology,. they call that projection, boy.
and killrate my messages. In order
[quote]to get level with me you make me small. Classical case
of a destructive obsession. You better stop it while you
can. Going on will do you no good, Panu Petteri Höglund.
Find a reasonable task in your life (something else than
fighting women>s rights), and later or laterer you may have
something to say.
[/quote]
In the time you have been hammering at your ideas here, boy, I have
written dozens of articles in the Irish Wikipedia, as well as several
hundreds of web columns. Among other things, that is. In the same
time, you have accomplished nothing, boy, except preaching your
"ideas" to an uninterested public here.
Now go away, you have no place in
[quote]my life and work.
[/quote]
You have no business telling me to go away from a public linguistic
forum, boy. Do you think you own the place?
I told you, boy, that you are hated and despised for a reason: you are
impudent and insolent. You come here to preach your crackpot ideas,
and expect me to go away, boy?
Look here, boy, this is not your own website - it>s called sci.lang,
not boys.own. If you don>t want your crackpot ideas to be criticized
and despised, please keep them out from this place, boy.
Return if you can prove PIE or disprove
[quote]Magdalenian. It must be done with scientific arguments,
which you lack, despite of having attended three
universities. Ad hominems, killrating, and a paternalistic
attitude can>t replace scientific arguments.
[/quote]
You have again misunderstood your position, boy. You are the one
presenting a new theory. So, you present the evidence, boy. So far
there has been no evidence other than your "ideas".
And the weak conjugation of "saugen", boy, has been accepted as a
legitimate variant both by Wahrig and Duden since I went to
highschool. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 7:31 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 6:18 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:43 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:06 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
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.
Ooh, you learned another epithet! (But not how to use it.)
"neo-grammarian sound change" as a short cut to expresss "sound
changes as propounded by the neogrammarians" is totally unremarkable.
No such thing. You _really_ ought to find out what "neogrammarian"
means.
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,
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?
:-) Thats your inimitably graceless, infantile and petulant way of
conceding my point.
It is not "your point"! Your ego is more immense than your ignorance!
(And "neogrammarian sound changes" has
nothing to do with it.
OK. WHy do you think formal language exhibits less change than less
formal language?
Who said it "exhibits less change"? It just takes it a while to catch
up.
[/quote]
well , you.
quote:
[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?
[/quote]
end quote.
and don>t weasel by saying that the "noting" (shouldn>t it be
noticing") only refers what you think I was doing - since I only posed
a question as to which type of speech would change more over a fixed
span of time.
At any rate, "takes a while to catch up " is only your weaseling way
of admitting that it changes more slowly.
[quote]
and how do you define "formal language" ?
Your 5 points are some of the stages on a cline of formality.
[/quote]
Instead of 'formality' and 'gravitas' (which has probably losing its
needling power) - let me use 'careful speech'. there are subgroups
within a speech community that tend to speak carefully (or to be more
precise social existence takes place in fairly well-defined mileus -
some of which call for more careful speech and some less) and their
speech acts as a break on the usually lenitive language changes that
tend to happen in the speech of less careful speakers.
[quote]
n.b. : try not to weasel out of your "we are never conscious of how we
produce speech" or something to that effect.
Once more, reading (or reciting) a prepared text is not "producing
speech."- Hide quoted text -
[/quote]
This is just layman assertion - since it doesn>t look like you are
speaking with expertise on the psychology of speech production.
lets even grant you this.
common sense quiz 101:
Can you point out a fairly common social situation where careful
speech takes place which is a type of conversation (not memorized by
either party)?
[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 7:26 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 6:41 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:46 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:36 pm, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor...@bla.si> wrote:
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...)
That>s _really_ going to annoy analys.... Doubtless he>ll just ignore
it.- Hide quoted text -
Its really sad to see you bait at such an infantile level. Why should
that annoy me anymore than claims that language change can be
discerned among the different books of the RigVeda?
It should annoy you because of your religious claim that the Sanskrit
language is one and immutable.
[/quote]
This is plain untruth:
start quote from what I wrote inthis very thread a day or two ago:
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
end quote.
[quote]
The changes were not neogrammarian - there might as well have been
"Prakritisms" in the Rig Veda - in which the bard used a Prakrit root-
word after polishing it a little bit for better euphony and perhaps
for scansion.
What the bloody hell does "The changes were not neogrammarian" mean?
[/quote]
I am sure you know what that means. But let me put it this way - for
the duration in which the vedas and the earlier canonical works that
would later form the basis of Hinduism were composed, earlier stages
of sanskrit cannot be derived from later stages by only looking at the
sound changes and the conditional factors that were considered by the
neogrammarians.
[quote]
You are incompetent to add anything to this thread, since you have no
idea what you are talking about.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 28, 1:44 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]
And "Me can>t believe you finally send de album!" is bad/wrong/
substandard English, but I guess it is correct Reggae.
[/quote]
There is no language called Reggae. There is a language called
Jamaican Patois, which is an offshoot of English. Precisely because it
is so different from Standard English, it would be amply justified to
codify a separate standard language for it and issue schoolbooks and
scientific literature in it.
It is of course different from standard English, but it is a
linguistic variety spoken natively by real people and transmitted
naturally from generation to generation, and as such it cannot be
"bad" or "wrong". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 2:11 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
[quote]António Marques (in sci.lang):
Joachim Pense wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
It should annoy you because of your religious claim that the Sanskrit
language is one and immutable.
If you define Sanskrit to be the language that conforms to Paninis rules,
then immutability is by definition, not a religious claim.
I understand that that is what analyst does.
It can>t be, since analys doesn>t apply a similar rule to any other
language.
There is no Panini for any other language.
Joachim
[/quote]
You guys don>t seem to be aware that Panini himself observed different
varieities of sanskrit.
I am saying that creative developments - innovating (or for that
matter borrowing) new language features or dropping older features
purely stylistically or for the regularization of messiness (all well
defined and localized and not cascading throughout the language like
the changes one seems from Vulgar Latin to the Romance languages) -
are not "language change" - they are merely the utilization of the
creative possibilities of language.
The sanskrit that only changed creatively coexisted with the various
Prakirts (even absorbing elements from them) and instead of mutating
into Apabhramsha and then Hindi etc. it had the grace to go into
suspended animation, living on only in Hindu sacraments and the
extant corpus of texts. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nikolaj
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
Joachim Pense pravi:
[quote]Nikolaj (in sci.lang):
They aren>t really that different. First verse of the Rgveda is pure
Classical Sanskrit
Except for that extra letter.
[/quote]
Ah, yes indeed. Except that this letter (the retroflex l: "ḻ ळ") and
it>s aspirate variant again aren>t really something independent. Indeed,
these two letters show the nature of the majority of the differences
between Classical and Vedic Sanskrit - Vedic Sanskrit has both letters:
the retroflex l and the retroflex d "Ḡड", the first occuring only
between two vowels, and the latter one if it comes next to the consonant
(from Whitney: from the root "īḠ/ to praise", there is Vedic "īḻe" for
normal "Ä«á¸e", but "Ä«á¸ya" remains). In a way that extra letter was a
variant which was standardised away in Classical Sanskrit.
Another major difference is the Vedic pitch accent, only that it wasn>t
present in Vedic Sanskrit only, but at the later times as well, because
PÄṇini gives the rules for the pitch accent, and not for the stress accent. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Joachim Pense
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com (in sci.lang):
[quote]On Jul 31, 12:17 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
ranjit_math...@yahoo.com (in sci.lang):
On Jul 30, 9:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
I>ll continue to believe Eric Hamp, who groups Armenian with Greek.
... meaning Greek and Armenian came from a proto-Armeno-Greek the
descendants of which included Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian, etc.?
Certainly not Lydian and Lycian, which were Anatolian languages.
Oh, yes; now, I remember. Till what time were these langauges used?
Did Croessus' subjects speak an Anatolian language?
[/quote]
I think so. The latest inscriptions date from the 4th century BCE. The
English Wikipedia states 100 BCE as extinction date.
Joachim |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Joachim Pense
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
[quote]
It should annoy you because of your religious claim that the Sanskrit
language is one and immutable.
[/quote]
If you define Sanskrit to be the language that conforms to Paninis rules,
then immutability is by definition, not a religious claim.
I understand that that is what analyst does.
Joachim |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
mb
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 11:34 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
...
[quote]The sanskrit that only changed creatively coexisted with the various
Prakirts (even absorbing elements from them) and instead of mutating
into Apabhramsha and then Hindi etc. it had the grace to go into
suspended animation, living on only in Hindu sacraments and the
extant corpus of texts.
[/quote]
Yawn. That>s what all dead languages do.
[Talk about "monumental stupidity": The difference between average
intelligence (which is nothing to write home about in the first place)
and mental retardation seems to reside in your communal-religious
nationalism, so typical as a correlate of stupidity.] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 2:34 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 2:11 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
António Marques (in sci.lang):
Joachim Pense wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
It should annoy you because of your religious claim that the Sanskrit
language is one and immutable.
If you define Sanskrit to be the language that conforms to Paninis rules,
then immutability is by definition, not a religious claim.
I understand that that is what analyst does.
It can>t be, since analys doesn>t apply a similar rule to any other
language.
There is no Panini for any other language.
Joachim
You guys don>t seem to be aware that Panini himself observed different
varieities of sanskrit.
I am saying that creative developments - innovating (or for that
matter borrowing) new language features or dropping older features
purely stylistically or for the regularization of messiness (all well
defined and localized and not cascading throughout the language like
the changes one seems from Vulgar Latin to the Romance languages) -
are not "language change" - they are merely the utilization of the
creative possibilities of language.
[/quote]
Sorry, but you don>t get to define "language change" so that it
accords with your religious views.
[quote]The sanskrit that only changed creatively coexisted with the various
Prakirts (even absorbing elements from them) and instead of mutating
into Apabhramsha and then Hindi etc. it had the grace to go into
suspended animation, living on only in Hindu sacraments and the
extant corpus of texts.
[/quote]
Sorry, but you don>t get to invent something called "only creative
change" in order to prop up your religious views. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
António Marques
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
Joachim Pense wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
It should annoy you because of your religious claim that the Sanskrit
language is one and immutable.
If you define Sanskrit to be the language that conforms to Paninis rules,
then immutability is by definition, not a religious claim.
I understand that that is what analyst does.
[/quote]
It can>t be, since analys doesn>t apply a similar rule to any other
language.
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 10:50 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 7:26 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 31, 6:41 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:46 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:36 pm, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor...@bla.si> wrote:
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...)
That>s _really_ going to annoy analys.... Doubtless he>ll just ignore
it.-
Its really sad to see you bait at such an infantile level. Why should
that annoy me anymore than claims that language change can be
discerned among the different books of the RigVeda?
It should annoy you because of your religious claim that the Sanskrit
language is one and immutable.
This is plain untruth:
start quote from what I wrote inthis very thread a day or two ago:
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
end quote.
[/quote]
And I congratulated you for coming to your senses (a bit), and then
you recanted.
[quote]The changes were not neogrammarian - there might as well have been
"Prakritisms" in the Rig Veda - in which the bard used a Prakrit root-
word after polishing it a little bit for better euphony and perhaps
for scansion.
What the bloody hell does "The changes were not neogrammarian" mean?
I am sure you know what that means. But let me put it this way - for
the duration in which the vedas and the earlier canonical works that
would later form the basis of Hinduism were composed, earlier stages
of sanskrit cannot be derived from later stages by only looking at the
sound changes and the conditional factors that were considered by the
neogrammarians.
[/quote]
I don>t know to what extent any one of the Junggrammatiker devoted
himself to Sanskrit; AFAIR they were far more concerned with the
history of Germanic. They did revere Whitney, but his Sanskrit Grammar
came out rather too late (1889) to be theoretically influential.
[quote]You are incompetent to add anything to this thread, since you have no
idea what you are talking about.-[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illust |
|
|
On Jul 31, 10:16 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 7:31 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 31, 6:18 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 10:43 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:06 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
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,
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?
:-) Thats your inimitably graceless, infantile and petulant way of
conceding my point.
It is not "your point"! Your ego is more immense than your ignorance!
(And "neogrammarian sound changes" has
nothing to do with it.
OK. WHy do you think formal language exhibits less change than less
formal language?
Who said it "exhibits less change"? It just takes it a while to catch
up.
well , you.
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?
end quote.
and don>t weasel by saying that the "noting" (shouldn>t it be
noticing") only refers what you think I was doing - since I only posed
a question as to which type of speech would change more over a fixed
span of time.
At any rate, "takes a while to catch up " is only your weaseling way
of admitting that it changes more slowly.
and how do you define "formal language" ?
Your 5 points are some of the stages on a cline of formality.
Instead of 'formality' and 'gravitas' (which has probably losing its
needling power) - let me use 'careful speech'. there are subgroups
[/quote]
You were trying to "needle" someone by reviving a word that was an
overused part of the 2004 (or was it the 2000) presidential
campaign??? I can>t imagine what you think "needling" or "gravitas"
means.
[quote]within a speech community that tend to speak carefully
[/quote]
If they do so in a "milieu" where that is not the norm, then they open
themselves to ridicule.
[quote](or to be more
precise social existence takes place in fairly well-defined mileus -
some of which call for more careful speech and some less) and their
speech acts as a break on the usually lenitive language changes that
tend to happen in the speech of less careful speakers.
[/quote]
There is no such thing as "usually lenitive language changes," the
language of ALL speakers changes. Do you really think the speeches of
movie senators in the 1930s (it was very rare indeed to portray a US
president in a movie in those days), such as Claude Rains and even
Jimmy Stewart -- both in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington -- are less
different from the speech of movie presidents today (I don>t go to
that kind of movie, so you>ll have to choose your own actors; on West
Wing, they almost never showed President Bartlet delivering the speech
that was being written during the previous episode(s)) -- do you
really think those speeches differ less from each other than the
speeches of ordinary characters differ between the generations?
[quote]n.b. : try not to weasel out of your "we are never conscious of how we
produce speech" or something to that effect.
Once more, reading (or reciting) a prepared text is not "producing
speech."-
This is just layman assertion - since it doesn>t look like you are
speaking with expertise on the psychology of speech production.
[/quote]
Have you ever heard the expression "Don>t teach your grandmother to
suck eggs"?
[quote]lets even grant you this.
common sense quiz 101:
Can you point out a fairly common social situation where careful
speech takes place which is a type of conversation (not memorized by
either party)?
[/quote]
No. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
