# Searching for criticism of PIE-theory



## Silly Barry

I am a philosopher preparing a paper on theoretical criterias for science. For this paper I will work with PIE-theory as a case study, mostly because this theory philosofically and theoretically seems somewhat controversial to me, but never the less is well established, with its constructions of allegedly prehistorical words and stems often being presented as if it was the plain truth.

For my effort to be succesful, I want to give a systematic review of the philosophical and theoretical criticism of the PIE-theory, and the comparative method by which the so called reconstructions are constructed.

I do not expect to be the first person in the world to do this, but actually I can find no such philosophical and theoretical criticism of PIE-theory and the comparative method - on the net or in the library.

Can anybody help me and guide me to any such systematic theoretical criticism of PIE-theory (and the comparative method).

Thanks in advance


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Silly Barry said:


> I am a philosopher preparing a paper on theoretical criterias for science. For this paper I will work with PIE-theory as a case study, mostly because this theory philosofically and theoretically seems somewhat controversial to me, but never the less is well established, with its constructions of allegedly prehistorical words and stems often being presented as if it was the plain truth.


What exactly seems to be controversial to you, and why?
By the way, there is some minor controversy among the status of the reconstructed PIE roots, though as far as I can see, the mainstream view seems to agree on the following:


> What should be emphasized is that reconstructed forms symbolize correspondences and make no final attempt at establishing the phonetic shape of reconstructed words. A reconstructed segment is a structural entity of the parent phonological system.
> From: Jeffers and Lehiste, _Principles and methods for historical linguistics_, p.19.


That's quite a difference with what you are claiming, viz. "allegedly prehistorical words and stems _often being presented as if it was the plain truth_", which gives me the impression that you have erected a straw man.

I also think that anybody who had a look at older writings dealing with "(P)IE linguistics" will notice that a lot of claims have been revised, up dated, dismissed or further discussed. Just have a look at a series of newer and older etymological dictionaries, to give one simple example.
The _Grundriss der Germanischen Philologie_ might have been the state of the art publication on Germanic linguistics at the date of publication (and beyond), but 100 years later it is out of date. So far for "the plain truth". 
Your idea that reconsructions (and hence the methods involved to get those reconstructions) are presented as "the plain truth" needs some serious revision. They might be the best reconstruction we have at this moment, done with the best methods, given the data (or lack there of). But if they need revision, both the methods and the reconstructions, then they will be revised (based upon new arguments and new methods). But anyway, isn't that the very nature of science?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## palomnik

If I understand you correctly, you are attempting to show that constructions of PIE are filled with presuppositions and, in the final analysis, unscientific. This might be more difficult than you suppose, for the reasons that Frank outlines pretty well.

A related, and in my opinion, more fitting subject for analysis along these lines would be attempting to determine whether the underlying structures that Indo-European languages share have tended to cause linguists to make hypotheses about language change that may not work well with other language families, for no other reason than that historical linguistics started with the analysis of IE languages. For example, historical linguistics relies heavily on demonstrable proof of phonetic evidence to indicate that two languages are related, and tends to weigh other evidence, such as grammatical similarity, less heavily. Phonetic evidence can be difficult to prove in languages that consist mainly of monosyllabic roots, however.

I realize that there are highly competent professional linguists out there that will disagree. What's more, it's an area of expertise that would require a lot of research of individual languages, and I'm sure your intent is not to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Silly Barry

Gentlemen I'm honoured, though I'm afraid we are about to violate a certain rule #2. ;-)

But yes, I can believe that my thread can awake curiosity, and even may be somewhat mind-provoking, so thats fine.

First adressing Frank and his Quote:



> What should be emphasized is that reconstructed forms symbolize correspondences and make no final attempt at establishing the phonetic shape of reconstructed words. A reconstructed segment is a structural entity of the parent phonological system.
> From: Jeffers and Lehiste, Principles and methods for historical linguistics, p.19.


 
This academic quote comes as no surprise to me. Jeffers and Lehiste personally believe that it "should be emphazized..."
Fair enough. - But it's not. Not in any of my dictionaries of etymology. Not in any encyclopedia I have seen. Not on Wiki. Not on this webside. Nowhere - except in a number of rather obscure academic texts.

Etymologic explanations are never followed by such a quote. Most often reconstructions are not even followed by reference to the architect. Therefore, I suppose, we can't really claim that the gentlemen Jeffers and Lehiste has been very succesful in their admonitions.

That said, I don't really see the relevance of this obscure quote, or how it should substantiate the "impression" that I have "erected a straw man".
Especially since the quote from Jeffers and Lehiste seems to give weight to my assumptions. How's that?

Well, Jeffers and Lehiste could have used the expression "believed to be" or "could be understood as", but they did not. Instead they seem to prefere the little ugly word _is_, which seems to be so popular among linguists in discussions concerning prehistoric languages. Notice quote again: "A reconstructed segment IS a structural entity of the parent phonological system". (my highlighting).

So finished with Jeffers and Lehiste. ;-)



> I also think that anybody who had a look at older writings dealing with "(P)IE linguistics" will notice that a lot of claims have been revised, up dated, dismissed or further discussed. Just have a look at a series of newer and older etymological dictionaries, to give one simple example.


 
In philosophy of science such chances are called "ad hoc changes". The amount of such changes especially tends to be overwhelming in rather weak scientific theories or paradigmas which are about to fall (Thomas Kuhn ao.), - and with the words of Wiki: "to save it from being falsified".



> Your idea that reconsructions (and hence the methods involved to get those reconstructions) are presented as "the plain truth" needs some serious revision. They might be the best reconstruction we have at this moment, done with the best methods, given the data (or lack there of).


 
The word "reconstruction" can easily be questioned philosophically when it comes to prehistoric language. What is wrong with the good, simple, honest and humble word constructions?



> But if they need revision, both the methods and the reconstructions, then they will be revised (based upon new arguments and new methods). But anyway, isn't that the very nature of science?


 
We certainly agree on this point.

Addressing Palomnik:



> What's more, it's an area of expertise that would require a lot of research of individual languages, and I'm sure your intent is not to reinvent the wheel.


 
Sorry, but I'm afraid so ;-)

At this point gentlemen, I find it appropriate to point out, that I highly regard this website. I have for quite some time followed the very serious and interesting discussions in this forum, and I have the deepest respect for you guys, You do a good job here! 

One reason that I have never really participated in the discussions myself is exactly because of my "dissident" views on the PIE topics. Views that I prefere to systemize and publish in a book I'm working on.

I'm aware that my views and methods, may seem provocative, and well, perhaps even as a thread to established views, and for that reason I will not only do my best to keep my post sober and my pen friendly and respectful, but I will also mainly pose open questions in this forum, without getting into very heated debates on the topics, and I hope you guys will allow me to keep a low profile on this forum. After all, I'm a historian and philosopher by education, not a linguist (yet).

Back to Frank:



> What exactly seems to be controversial to you, and why?


 
A full answer to this question from me is a very long song coming, and I will save that for my book. But I can easily point to some deeper problems of PIE-theory, with an approach that will come as no surprise to the average philosopher of science. This will includes instruments such as the problem of falsifiability (Karl Popper) for PIE-theory, which poses the question "If PIE is false, how can this be shown by observation or experiment." Or in this version, if you will: "If God does NOT exist, how can this be shown by observation or experiment". Nobody, I believe have managed to come up with a satisfying answer to this question, and accordingly we normally do not catagorize the proposition "God do not exist (and vice versa) as a scientific statement. We call it religion, actually.

Needless to say, this principle is not sufficient as a demarcation principle for science, but it is still quite useful in analyzing the state of strength/weakness for a given scientific theory.

You are very welcome to give it a shot 

Another approach will be to mass compare PIE-theory, to all established scientific criterias, and then count the value on this wide scale. Value = O (No criterias fulfilled) will render the conclusion: PIE "reconstructions" only contains information about the constructeur, and NO information about the prehistoric language. This analysis which (as mentioned) is based on basic academic criterias, owes much to Charles Stevenson and can be dubbed "Emotive Value Analysis".

Then of course there is the principle of the simple solution (known as Ochhams razor), which suggest that anything complex must derive from something more simple. It's plain to see that this is a tough one for PIE-reconstructions, where fx. the english word "widow" has been reconstructed as something as simple as (hold tight): h1wid(h)wéh2h1e. And I remind you such kind of "reconstructions" is in no way rare in PIE-theory, where the reconstructions most often are longer and much more complicated than the words they are derived from.

Then of course there is etymologic problems that PIE-theory really can't say much about. Such as mutations, phonosemantic matching etc. etc. etc. etc. 

And well, this is just for a starter. The real tough arguments I prefere not to share on this webpage for now, but to save for my book, which not only will contain criticism of PIE, but also will guide to other (in my view much sharper) methods of etymology, and in generel will trace the logic of our forefathers without postulating that there was ever such thing as a single Proto-European language. 

Thanx for your input, gentlemen.


----------



## phosphore

Silly Barry said:


> the english word "widow" has been reconstructed as something as simple as (hold tight): h1wid(h)wéh2h1e.


 
That's just a matter of notation.

I can't see how you would write about historical linguistics if you don't really know linguistics? You may think certain etymologies you encountered are "n'importe quoi" and you're quite possibly right, but that says nothing about historical linguistics you want to write about.


----------



## Malti

> Etymologies are never followed by such a quote.



Surely because it's to be assumed in such a context without needing to be explicitly stated all the time?



> "If PIE is false, how can this be shown by observation or experiment." [...] "If God does NOT exist, how can this be shown by observation or experiment".



A problem with this as a comparison, is that your first sentence is in the wrong tense. The Proto-Indo-European language most certainly does not exist. _Any more_. But the vast majority of our 'knowledge' of all but the most recent human history is based on extrapolation from what we do know today, in all areas, not just language. It seems a little weird to pick on PIE in this instance when basically every other study of things from the past is fraught with the same issues. In archaeology or whatever, you often have the same progression of educated guessing - "We've found a building's foundations here, we'll assume there was a house...oh look, there's a piece of religious carving, so probably actually a church." type thing, when for all we actually know it could have been an awesome pre-historic slide.

I digress, but my point is still basically the same as my first, it is given that all areas of historical study are awash with things that we don't know, we can't know, and we do our best. It doesn't need to be said all the time that what we 'know' is more strictly a 'belief'.



> the logic of our forefathers without postulating that there was ever such thing as a single proto-european language.


I assumed you were taking issue with how the PIE reconstructions were established, not the entire idea itself. So, and obviously you needn't give away to many spoilers for your upcoming work, what do you consider the explanation for the large number of similarities between the Indo-European languages?



> Then of course there is the principle of the simple solution (known as Ochhams razor), which suggest that anything complex must derive from something more simple.


How do you reconcile that with documented simplification of modern languages, such as the grammar of most Germanic languages? If Old English can have 12-ish words for 'the' yet now it has but one, why can't 'h1wid(h)wéh2h1e' become 'widow' (though incidentally, most sources online I can find seem to give '*widhewo' as the proposed root, and indeed it is mainly the h1's and h2's making yours look scarier)?


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> The word "reconstruction" can easily be questioned philosophically when it comes to prehistoric language. What is wrong with the good, simple, honest and humble word constructions?


Because construction and reconstruction are different things. Nobody is trying to construct a proto-language. Scholars do indeed attempt to reconstruct a once existing language or group of very closely related languages of with we have no direct evidence.


Silly Barry said:


> But I can easily point to some deeper problems of PIE-theory, with an approach that will come as no surprise to the average philosopher of science. This will includes instruments such as the problem of falsifiability (Karl Popper) for PIE-theory, which poses the question "If PIE is false, how can this be shown by observation or experiment." Or in this version, if you will: "If God does NOT exist, how can this be shown by observation or experiment". Nobody, I believe have managed to come up with a satisfying answer to this question, and accordingly we normally do not catagorize the proposition "God do not exist (and vice versa) as a scientific statement. We call it religion, actually.


I agree with Malti that you have to distinguish  between the PIE theory which states that IE languages are all derived from a single proto language and the attempt to reconstruct that proto language.

In a Popperian context, the latter would be regarded as a research programme rather than as a theory. Research programmes are by their very nature metaphysical, i.e. not falsifiable.

Concerning the former, I can't see why it should be labeled unscientific. Contrary to folk-etymology, proper comparative method requires demonstrable  systematic developments (e.g. the Old High German sound shift) to identify cognates for which we don't have direct proof rather than ad hoc assumptions.


----------



## sokol

Well, it never has been claimed (except in the dawn of IE linguistics) that the reconstruction of Proto-IndoEuropean were a "real" language: it isn't, it is more or less a mathematical reconstruction (not exactly mathematical in the strictest sense but with rules of development and exceptions of those rules and exceptions of those exceptions, and so on).

A good IE linguist should be aware that PIE is not a language which was "spoken" but a reconstruction based on data of all IE languages of which we have data. Obviously, many IE languages didn't contribute anything to this comparison, or not much (like Illyrian, Thracian, etc.).
As there isn't sufficient data, and as there aren't any tape recordings from speakers of PIE,*) it is of course impossible to reconstruct and describe PIE accurately.

*) ... and, I should say, as it isn't even clear that PIE was a "unified" language: actually some IE linguists believe that PIE at its earliest stage must have been divided into dialects in order to explain some developments.


The point is that the reconstructed PIE language, and the rules explaining the development of modern IE languages, only ever could be a good approximation to the truth - the goal of course being to make it as good an approximation as possible.

If an IE linguist is not aware of this then he or she should take a refresher course in the basics of historical linguistics. 

You don't get too far with the data available if you take a Popper'sche attitude  - after all, to Popper (if I read this correctly) each science which cannot be proven (or unproven) is metaphysics.
(Which of course, eventually, would define historical linguistics as a metaphysical field of study.)

So if I interpreted your post correctly, Silly Barry, then you asked about whether historical linguistics could be a "scientific" field of study like is the case with natural sciences, right?
If so the answer to this definitely is "no", at least as far as I am concerned  - more so, I would give "no" as an answer to this questions for most of the so-called humanities studies (which includes philosophy, and yes I know that some philosophers try to transform their field to a "natural science").


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Silly Barry said:


> Jeffers and Lehiste personally believe that it "should be emphazized..."


As do most of the other historical linguists, yes. 


> Not in any of my dictionaries of etymology. Not in any encyclopedia I have seen. Not on Wiki. Not on this webside. Nowhere - except in a number of rather obscure academic texts.


No, etymological dictionaries don't give that kind of information, no. What did you expect? 
As for the other sources you mention: articles in encyclopedias are supposed to be quite good introductions, summaries. Basing your revision upon that kind of articles and texts _and_ at the same time dismissing sound linguistic sources as "obscure" is quite weird.
(Gentleman) Jeffers' and (_lady_) Lehiste's book an "obscure academic text"?? Nah .
As for this website (and etymological dictionaries, by the way): one cannot expect to find included a full copy of e.g. Lehmann's _Theoretical bases for Indo-European linguistics_ in every single answer presented here.


> Etymologic explanations are never followed by such a quote. Most often reconstructions are not even followed by reference to the architect.


I think we have slightly different ideas about the kind of information which is to be found in an etymological dictionary. Do you really expect the architects, the names of which are to be found on the front cover or title page, mention their sources every single time? Do you expect, for example, to find a reference to Grimm every single time PIE *d > PGmc *t is mentioned?
I don't think etymological dictionaries should be read without at least a basic understanding of linguistics and historical linguistics. This may sound terribly snotty, but there is an enormously huge amount of linguistic literature for that, to be found in libraries.


> "A reconstructed segment IS a structural entity of the parent phonological system". (my highlighting).


So the problem is, pardon me, seems to be an ugly word. Tja...



> In philosophy of science such chances are called "ad hoc changes".


I am very willing to learn about all the ad hoc changes used in mainstream PIE historical linguistics.



> The word "reconstruction" can easily be questioned philosophically when it comes to prehistoric language. What is wrong with the good, simple, honest and humble word constructions?


It might come as a surprise to philosophers that in an attempt to *reconstruct* PIE (which is one of the aims of PIE linguistics), the term "reconstruction" is used. Luckily, linguists are less sensitive to that.
Now, of course, I do understand that you don't have a problem with "reconstruction" as a term per se, but with the notion of "reconstructing PIE" in general.
So far, it's a great working hypothesis which stands for more than 200 years. It has proven its value (e.g. in case of de Saussure's "prediction" of what we now call laryngeals). But I agree that it can be replaced by a better working hypothesis or theory even, _if available_. Any suggestions?


> A full answer to this question from me is a very long song coming, and I will save that for my book.


Ah, okay. You can't give it now... Even though that is not really a satisfying answer, I'll eagerly wait for your book then. Yes, I might sound a tad critical, but I'm very interested nevertheless.


> But I can easily point to some deeper problems of PIE-theory, with an approach that will come as no surprise to the average philosopher of science. This will includes instruments such as the problem of falsifiability (Karl Popper) for PIE-theory, which poses the question "If PIE is false, how can this be shown by observation or experiment."


Well, HL doesn't have to talk about falsifiability for somebody to falsify it. As Watkins, that other author of many obscure academic texts, says in the introduction of _the American dictionary of Indo-European roots_:


> It has been rightly said that the comparatist has one fact and one hypothesis. The one fact is that certain languages present similarities among themselves which are so numerous and precise that they cannot be attributed to chance [...] The one hypothesis is that these languages must then be the result of descent from a common original.


One fact, one hypothesis. That should be easy to falsify, no?
Alas, to answer your original question, I haven't seen a convincing falsification yet.
By the way, wasn't it Popper himself who expressed his reservations about physicalist approaches in explaining human and cultural activity?



> Or in this version, if you will: "If God does NOT exist, how can this be shown by observation or experiment".


Nah nah, this is a false analogy between PIE being (not) false versus the (non-)existence of a deity. 



> Then of course there is the principle of the simple solution (known as Ochhams razor), which suggest that anything complex must derive from something more simple. It's plain to see that this is a tough one for PIE-reconstructions, where fx. the english word "widow" has been reconstructed as something as simple as (hold tight): h1wid(h)wéh2h1e.


First of all, Occam's razor is not about the idea that complexity must derive from simplicity, as you seem to suggest.
From Wikipedia:


> When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.


_That's_ how the notion Occam's razor is normally used and that's completely different from what you say.
Secondly, according to your train of thought, a morphologically more complex language (let's take Latin) cannot be the ancestor of a language which is morphologically less complex, let's take French. Or to give another example: according to you, "alstublieft" cannot come from the more complex phrase "als het u belieft" (It's Dutch and it doesn't matter what it means). Quite a task you'll have to substantiate that.
Thirdly: h1wid(h)wéh2h1e. What's weird about that, knowing that the h1 and h2 represent laryngeals. The seemingly complexity of h1wid(h)wéh2h1e can be explained step by step. This, however, requires more than simply browsing through an etymological dictionary.


Malti said:


> most sources online I can find seem to give '*widhewo' as the proposed root, and indeed it is mainly the h1's and h2's making yours look scarier)?


People like e.g. Watkins do not explicietly give the laryngeals (which can be noted as H or h with a number ...) in their reconstructions of late(r) PIE roots. Watkins does mention them in his introduction. His root *ant-* is the late PIE form, which evolved out of *h2ant-, from Old PIE *h2ent (which had a fairly vowel sytem: only e). Let's make an abstraction of the fact that Watkins uses shwa in stead of h.
Well, hardly anybody gives laryngeals in the EDs. Even though the concept of PIE laryngeals is widely accepted, not by everybody, there is still debate about the number of laryngeals (3 is the most quoted number, some suggest 1, Martinet gives 10!). 



> And I remind you such kind of "reconstructions" is in no way rare in PIE-theory, where the reconstructions most often are longer and much more complicated than the words they are derived from.


Ever considered the idea that you're starting point is wrong? I know the argument "anything complex must derive from something more simple" from Richard Dawkins (among others) with regards to evolution theory, but it doesn't take a lot of effort to see that *PIE* linguistics is not evolutionary biology. And while Dawkins has a point in his field, it only takes a simple look at a bunch attested texts, let's stick to Latin/French to see how a language can become (morphologically) less complex.
Middle Dutch was morphologically more complex than Modern Dutch (e.g. four cases versus none, disregarding the pronouns; the verbal system), but according to you, "simple" Modern Dutch cannot come from "Middle Dutch"? Hence, by your logic, Afrikaans has nothing to do with Dutch?

It's not a giant leap of logic to get from these observations to PIE. Neither is it a a major step to suggest that PIE was morphologically more complex than post (attested) IE languages. 

On the other hand, PIE dates back to 7/5000 years BC. Theoretically, that would leave us with enough millennia, 90 or so, to speculate about language going from a simple to a complex system. Alas, in reality, we don't know anything and cannot know anything for sure about those initial 90.000 (or so) years due to the lack of attestations and the lack of methods to come to a widely accepted reconstruction.



> Then of course there is etymologic problems that PIE-theory really can't say much about. Such as mutations, phonosemantic matching etc. etc. etc. etc.


Mutations? Again, we're not talking DNA, we're talking linguistics. It seems to me you're applying a different frame of reference.


> And well, this is just for a starter. The real tough arguments I prefere not to share on this webpage for now, but to save for my book, which not only will contain criticism of PIE, but also will guide to other (in my view much sharper) methods of etymology, and in generel will trace the logic of our forefathers without postulating that there was ever such thing as a single Proto-European language.


Indeed, most modern linguists consider PIE as a dialect continuum.

Frank


----------



## XiaoRoel

El protoindoeuropeo, como el mismo indoeuropeo común, desde el punto de vista actual de los indoeuropeistas, no son "idiomas reconstruidos" ni pretenden serlo.
De lo que se habla en lingüística ie. son de características comunes lingüísticas, especialmente en el campo de la fonética y de la fonología y en el de la semántica, que unen desde época antigua una familia de lenguas.
El pie. no es más que una teorización, no una reconstrucción.
La lingüística ie. nace al abrigo de la lingüística románica y surante  mucho tiempo intentó reconstruir una lengua real, como para la lenguas romances debió de ser el latín vulgar. Hoy en día no va por ahí el camino de la investigación, sino que va en el sentido de buscar grandes derivas lingüísticas desde la prehistoria hasta las lenguas actuales en esta familia lingüística.
Se ha citado aquí la supuesta raíz de la palabra "viuda" y hasta ha habido un cierto susto o asombro ante la aparición de la notación de las laringales, que son coeficientes sonánticos abstractos, no un sonido real de ninguna lengua.
Todos los clasicistas españoles tuvimos que estudiar los libros del profesor Rodríguez Adrados, uno de los adalides de la teoría del pie., pero en ningún momento estábamos estudiando una lengua dada, sino una serie de referencias lingüísticas entre lenguas que, cuanto más atrás se remontan, más simples parecen ser.
Dentro de la lingüística indoeuropea hay varios métodos diferentes, desde la teoría de las ondas hasta la del árbol. Eso sería uno de los puntos a tratar desde el punto de vista del criticismo filosófico.
Pero hay otro punto todavía más discutible, el hilo que une las investigaciones lingüísticas, puramente teóricas, y las investigaciones arqueológicas y genéticas, que presentan "pruebas" materiales. También en este campo habría que discutir incluso la teoría de un centro difusor único (que aceptan tanto los partidarios de Marija Gymbutas, Renfrew o la reciente Teoría de la Continuidad Paleolítica) o de una serie de lenguas con criterios de organización intralingüística semejantes que hayan estado en contacto durante miles de años.
Que hay una serie de lenguas que forman una "familia lingüística" que hemos dado en llamar indoeuropea es algo que no admite discusión (si no, no se hubiese podido descifrar el hitita) y evidente a cualquiera que consulte el diccionario de Pokorny.
El problemas es el cuando y el como. Pero como todo método científico que cumple el principio de falsabilidad, el campo está abierto al criticismo. Pero éste nunca será demoledor ni podrá hacer una _tabulam rasam_ de la teoría. Se podrán reordenar datos, abrir perspectivas, reinterpretar valores lingüísticos de las formas, pero el negacionismo es imposible: tal es el cúmulo de evidencias.
Difícil tarea para un filósofo de la ciencia y más si en el campo lingüístico no está muy formado. Si ya asustan las notaciones de las laringales, mal empezamos.
Benveniste, Adrados, Villar Liébana, Renfrew, Marija Gymbutas y la moderna TCP (PCT en inglés): esto para empezar y hablando sólo desde los años 1960 hacia adelante. Una tarea difícil para alguien que no proceda del campo de la lingüística y no controle como mínimo cinco o seis lenguas ies. antiguas.
Suerte en el empeño.


----------



## berndf

sokol said:


> You don't get too far with the data available if you take a Popper'sche attitude  - after all, to Popper (if I read this correctly) each science which cannot be proven (or unproven) is metaphysics.
> (Which of course, eventually, would define historical linguistics as a metaphysical field of study.)


In falsificationist philosophy, scientific theories are distinguished from metaphysical theories by the criterion of falsifiability: A theory is metaphysical if there is not possible way it could be refuted, no possible observation (or "basic sentence" in Popper's philosophy) could be in contradiction to that  theory. Falsificationists argue that scientific theories cannot be proven only disproven. Hence verifiability is a useless criterion to distinguish science from non-science but falsification of a scientific theory is possible and certain hence falsifiability is the sole meaningful criterion of demarcation. Popper's philosophy which he calls "falibilist", is similar to falsificationism but with two important modifications: Firstly, for him falsification are not final and certain either but fallible as all human judgement. Secondly, metaphysical theories are not "bad" and don't have to be identified to be expelled from the realm science. But a good scientist will always strive to test his hypotheses as severely as possible and this he will do by amending his theories to make them falsifiable. Failure in the attempt to refute a theory is best possible "corroboration" (as Popper calls it) of a scientific theory. Popper's definition of "corroboration" resembles the definition of "flying" in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Try to throw yourself on the ground and fail.

Applying this to the PIE theory, lack of falsifiability (of which I don't admit it is the case) would not per se be a counter-argument against the PIE hypothesis but means that it must be improved or the test methods need to be improved.  But reducing the PIE hypothesis to nothing more than a





sokol said:


> ...more or less a mathematical reconstruction...


would be regarded as problematic from a methodological point of view. Even if PIE was not a single language but a dialect continuum as Frank wrote, it would still be a real language. If you voided the hypothesis of any such reality and reduced it to a purely logical construct you would go in the wrong direction and "immunize" the theory rather than improving its testability.


----------



## sokol

berndf said:


> Applying this to the PIE theory, lack of falsifiability (of which I don't admit it is the case) would not per se be a counter-argument against the PIE hypothesis but means that it must be improved or the test methods need to be improved.


Obviously I'm a bloody amateur when it comes to Popper. 
In that case I agree, PIE theory could be judged by the falsification method: theories about individual sound changes like Verner's law can be subjected to this method, and sound laws like this ones could be proven as "true" as falsification is not possible.



berndf said:


> But reducing the PIE hypothesis to nothing more than a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sokol said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...more or less a mathematical reconstruction...
> 
> 
> 
> would be regarded as problematic from a methodological point of view. Even if PIE was not a single language but a dialect continuum as Frank wrote, it would still be a real language. If you voided the hypothesis of any such reality and reduced it to a purely logical construct you would go in the wrong direction and "immunize" the theory rather than improving its testability.
Click to expand...

I know that Proto-Indoeuropean now is considered by some (or many) as a dialect continuum (and I'm supporting this theory ); however, the reconstructions of PIE do not yet acknowledge this as_ they are reconstructions for simple "unilinear" sound changes (A changed to B in all phonetical contexts as described by C) r_ather than trying to describe possible PIE dialects_ (A changed to B in all phonetical contexts of C *only* for dialect group X, while in group Y this was not so, and group Z shows an intermediate level where the sound change only is applied in condition D)._

Of course PIE once must have been a real language, no matter whether you think of it as a "unified" language as was traditionally done, or whether you think of it as a dialect continuum.

But the point I tried to make above (and on which I haven't elaborated sufficiently ;-) is that our _current_ description of PIE obviously does not describe the language as spoken then.
This of course is not only about sound changing rules (which do not allow for dialect variation, and many of them also aren't agreed upon unanimously between linguists: for example, there exist several interpretations of the laryngal theory - or at least to my knowledge this controversy hasn't been settled yet).

And apart from sound changes there's also morphology (which genders had PIE - was it the system of ancient Hittite, or classical three-gender-distinction, or yet some other kind of gender distinction), there's syntax (which probably has been researched the least, so far), and there's the lexicon (especially Proto-Germanic has a great many basic words which aren't of PIE origin).

So all in all there isn't just sufficient material available to reconstruct a kind of PIE _*which could work as a language*_ - this is not possible in our times (and probably never will be).
Even a top IE linguist wouldn't be able to translate a short text of say 100 words about very basic events in daily life to Proto-Indoeuropean _*and*_ subject this (successfully) to the falsification method (that is, prove by this method that the text has been translated correctly).

Probably some linguists would manage to come up with a text version which would sound "authentic" and has some likeliness of coming close to some version of PIE - but it would be utterly impossible to prove that the translation is "correct".

And that is what I meant with "mathematical reconstruction": PIE so far is a (more or less likely) reconstruction of a proto-language which, for the time being, cannot be proven as being accurate in all respects.


----------



## berndf

sokol said:


> Obviously I'm a bloody amateur when it comes to Popper.
> In that case I agree, PIE theory could be judged by the falsification method: theories about individual sound changes like Verner's law can be subjected to this method, and sound laws like this ones could be proven as "true" as falsification is not possible.


To be a bit more explicit: falsifiability in an epistimological context mean logical possibility of falsification, i.e. a theory is falsifiable if and only if it has at least one logical consequence which can logically be either true of false and the truth of this consequence can be verified or falsified by an observable fact. The classic example is the statement "All ravens are black" which can be falsified by finding a white raven but it cannot be verified because for this we would need to examine all ravens that ever lived, live or will live.

Applying this to sound shift laws, a law "From ancestor language A to language B, sound X changes under unknown conditions to sound Y" is not falsifiable and hence not testable. But by providing such a condition, i.e. by replacing our theory by a logically stronger one, we can proceed from a non-testable to a testable theory which also has more explanatory power.


sokol said:


> But the point I tried to make above (and on which I haven't elaborated sufficiently ;-) is that our _current_ description of PIE obviously does not describe the language as spoken then.


Thank you for the clarification. I fully agree with your explanation.


----------



## Silly Barry

Thanks to Berndf for clarifying Popper. It should be clear now that Popper's criteria of falsification is only the first step in the systematic description of the category to which PIE-theory belongs. This step helps to establish whether PIE-theory could possible claim to be testable. 

As I said: "Needless to say, this principle is not sufficient as a demarcation principle for science." 

To determine the scientific credibility of PIE-theory, further analysis is required. Next step will be a philosophical analysis of consistence, (including analysis of self-reflective instruments and arguments, as well as ostensive definitions and descriptions) before going yet further deep into the “analysis of functionality”.



Adressing phosphore: 



> I can't see how you would write about historical linguistics if you don't really know linguistics? You may think certain etymologies you encountered are "n'importe quoi" and you're quite possibly right, but that says nothing about historical linguistics you want to write about


. 
I used the phrase “by education”. It would be a logical fallacy to assume simply from that statement, that I have no knowledge of linguistics (and historic linguistics), - or in Erasmus’ words with a famous quote from the history of linguistics:

"Anyone who looks closely at the inward nature and essence will find that nobody is further from true wisdom than those people with their grand titles, learned bonnets, splendid saches and bejeweled rings, who profess to be wisdom's peak" (Erasmus 1515).


Adressing Malti:

Silly Barry: "If PIE is false, how can this be shown by observation or experiment." [...] "If God does NOT exist, how can this be shown by observation or experiment"


> A problem with this as a comparison, is that your first sentence is in the wrong tense. The Proto-Indo-European language most certainly does not exist. _Any more_. But the vast majority of our 'knowledge' of all but the most recent human history is based on extrapolation from what we do know today, in all areas, not just language.


Since PIE as a prehistoric language has never been attested, it’s with your words ”to be assumed in such a context without needing to be explicitly stated all the time”, - that when using the form PIE, it’s short for the theory-model labeled PIE theory, along with it’s reconstructions and pre-assumptions.

And therefore no wrong tense.



> It seems a little weird to pick on PIE in this instance when basically every other study of things from the past is fraught with the same issues. what do you consider the explanation for the large number of similarities between the Indo-European languages?


The convention of what constitute “similarities” is just that: A convention. This convention is based on a very simple logic of definition: "This is similarities, because this is what we choose to call similarities."

Iimportant questions to be answered is of course:
1. what “similarities” PIE-theory prefere to label “similarities”.
2. what similarities PIE-theory prefere NOT to label “similarities” 





> If Old English can have 12-ish words for 'the' yet now it has but one, why can't 'h1wid(h)wéh2h1e' become 'widow'


Actually its possible to associate all PIE-reconstructions of the word widow to the town where my daughter lives, spelled Hvidovre ,with the R as end-rune, precisely as in old northern word “vikingr” 


However, the interesting question is how any PIE-reconstruction, could possibly be declared to constitute an etymologic explanation of any word, in this case widow. Some linguists will probably prefer to argue that it explains merely similarities. But even for that: Why should anyone assume that phono-semantic maching, and other oddities isn’t in play all the way.

Such oddities are attested in historic times (like: hangmat/hammock) and we must therefore also assume that it existed in prehistoric times – (if not, “ad hoc”-solutions would be required). But if we play that game everything seem possible. 

Among these possible presumably undetectable influences one could also imagine prehistoric abreviations, not to mention oddities like the “kenning”-phenomenon supposedly attested in historic times, where every phrase can be chopped up and turned around and substituted (no formal logic rule for this phenomenon has ever been described in linguistics). 





> (though incidentally, most sources online I can find seem to give '*widhewo' as the proposed root, and indeed it is mainly the h1's and h2's making yours look scarier)?


*widhewo is a less careful expression (to make it easier to read, presumably), and therefore that expression would be arguably weaker. An explanation for this will go: Both the _h_ and the _e_ in *widhewo could pretty much be anything from a schwa to a glottal stop and the _d_ wasn’t supposingly a “hard” d, but rather something like a “thorn” or “eth”-thing, which, at least in northern Europe, seems to be more or less interchangeable with Y, en pendant to “thou/you” thorn-confusion. 

The “eth”-sound seems to have been more popular in east Scandinavia, where as around the north sea, the “ye” sound, seem to have been preferred The “ye”-sound is the modern soft g, in Scandinavia, removed from England by the Normans and altered to Y (gestern daeg/yesterday). 

Therefore we can not get any closer than the label “semivowel” in this case as well, if we can even go so far. Everything is thus possible, so we must choose a careful expression of the model. And this was just one possible version, 

Sorry to scare you J. 

I'll be back!


----------



## Malti

> when using PIE, it’s short for the theory-model labeled PIE theory, along with it’s reconstructions and pre-assumptions.
> And therefore no wrong tense.



Apologies. I have been at some points confused about whether you were talking about the language or the theory when you say PIE, partly because you've usually used PIE-theory when you meant the theory. But I still question the analogy with the God example, as one can most definitely prove that the PIE-theory exists as a theory. There's books about it, it exists. The question is whether it's correct, not whether it exists. Different from the God example.




> Iimportant questions to be answered is of course:
> 1. what “similarities” PIE-Theory prefere to label “similarities”.
> 2. what “similarities” PIE-Theory prefere NOT to label “similarities”



No, the question is, or rather my question was, what do you see as the explanation for the "similarities" (that is, those things that are conventionally recognised as "similarities" by linguists, such as common roots for words, structural parallels, and phonological factors such as the IE-ablaut) between the Indo-European languages, if it is not their derivation from a common source?




> The interesting question for me is...



But again, the question that interests you is not actually the same as an answer to mine.




> but rather something like a “thorn” or “eth”-thing, which, at least in northern Europe, seems to be more or less interchangeable with Y, en pendant to “thou/you” thorn-confusion.



I was under the impression that the þ/y confusion was a written one due to the similarity of their handwritten forms (here I am defining "similarity" as meaning that they were a bit hard to tell apart when you looked at them, just to be clear), was there a lack of distinction as regards pronunciation as well? (Or maybe I'm thinking of something else, I'm not entirely sure what you're point you're trying to make with this bit, forgive me if I'm being stupid.)



> Everything is thus possible, so we must choose a careful expression of the model. And this was just one possible version



We choose the version that seems most plausible given the known modern day derivatives. In this case: widow, weduwe, wdowa, vedova, văduvă,  вдовица (vdóvica), विद्वा (vidva), etc. I think there is no doubt that we do not know how the root for these words exactly sounded or how it should be orthographically represented. The idea is more just that there is a common source for them. (And if you are suggesting that there isn't, then how do you propose that languages as far flung as Dutch, Romanian and Hindi have such similar sounding words for the same concept?)http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=văduvă&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/weduwe#Dutch


----------



## berndf

Malti said:


> I was under the impression that the þ/y confusion was a written one due to the similarity of their handwritten form...


Absolutely. And "thou/you" has nothinng to do with a "Thorn-confusion". Those are simply different pronouns: "Thou" is 2nd singular and "you" is the accusative of "ye", 2nd plural. There was a "Thorn-confusion" between "the" and "ye" but only in spelling. One graphical variant of the Thorn can easily be confused with a "y". No variety of English ever pronounced "the" like "ye".

@Silly Barry: I am not sure I understand what your point is.


----------



## Silly Barry

Adressing Malti:

Let me just correct my questions to:
1. what sort of “similarities” PIE-Theory prefere to label “similarities”.
2. what sort of similarities PIE-Theory prefere NOT to label “similarities”.



> No, the question is, or rather my question was, what do you see as the explanation for the "similarities" (that is, those things that are conventionally recognised as "similarities" by linguists, such as common roots for words, structural parallels, and phonological factors such as the IE-ablaut) between the Indo-European languages, if it is not their derivation from a common source?


 
Well, one thing is clear: PIE-theory offers no explanations for these similarities, so what sought of explanation do you want? 

1. common roots for words: Actually there exist logical explanations for certain common phonemes such that the word for "open" is - not surprisingly - to be pronounced with an open mouth. 
This is however beyond the scope of PIE-theory to analyze. In any instance, roots are easily imported, and how would you define a root to be especially "Indo European"?

2. structural parallels. 
Such as for example syllables as structurel similarities for Indo-European language, I suppose. It's just a theory. If you wear the syllable glasses, then you see syllables. You can also wear pink glasses, and the world will be pink. 

3.IE-ablaut 
The question is how ablaut in any way is explaned by the idea of a common source of Indo-European language. Why should the world accept the idea of a common source of Indo-European language, if the theory does not explain any of the above similarities? 

And why should anyone accept as explanation the rather self-reflecting: Ablaut happens as a rule, because there is a rule that ablaut happens.



> But I still question the analogy with the God example, as one can most definitely prove that the PIE-theory exists as a theory. There's books about it, it exists. The question is whether it's correct, not whether it exists. Different from the God example.


 
Okay. Let Y be the proposition "there was one and only one common source for Indo-European language". Let X be "God exist". Add "proposition X/Y is true": Insert in argument, Same formula!



> I was under the impression that the þ/y confusion was a written one due to the similarity of their handwritten forms (here I am defining "similarity" as meaning that they were a bit hard to tell apart when you looked at them, just to be clear), was there a lack of distinction as regards pronunciation as well? (Or maybe I'm thinking of something else, I'm not entirely sure what you're point you're trying to make with this bit, forgive me if I'm being stupid.)


 
Your thoughts are in no way stupid. The letter similarity theory is actually quite possible, but in any instance that is a british etymology only, and do not account for the pronounciation shifts in scandinavia between ye and eth. 

I believe the explanation is that they had the same dipthong-letter, that's the word-creator rune "< >" of elder futhark, pronounced YE-ETH (meaning creator), which was the contrast letter to the divider rune "X" pronounced ETH-YE (meaning edge). The E's are schwa's needless to say.

Thus they had the same original grammatic-leksical funktion, therefore these semivowel sounds didn't even have to be pronounced (muted d in Scandinavia). People would choose what suited them best. ;-)

Well, this explanation of course conflicts with established linguistic theories


----------



## Silly Barry

Sokol said:



> Well, it never has been claimed (except in the dawn of IE linguistics) that the reconstruction of Proto-IndoEuropean were a "real" language: it isn't, it is more or less a mathematical reconstruction (not exactly mathematical in the strictest sense but with rules of development and exceptions of those rules and exceptions of those exceptions, and so on).


I fear that the reason the phrase “more or less” is used, is that the reconstruction of Proto-IndoEuropean as a theory, is exactly in no way comparable with mathematics. - Other available terms: formalism, lexicalism, stylography - all sounds good to me. J




> The point is that the reconstructed PIE language, and the rules explaining the development of modern IE languages, only ever could be a good approximation to the truth - the goal of course being to make it as good an approximation as possible.


“approximation to the truth” is an interesting point. How would one define this axiom?
As you got no criteria of correspondence, because there's no “truth/false” available to correspond it to (it’s prehistoric), how could you possibly conduct such “approximation to the truth”?. 

;-)


----------



## Malti

> common roots for words: Actually there exist logical explanations for certain common phonemes such that the word for "open" is - not surprisingly - to be pronounced with an open mouth.


So going back to the 'widow' example, you think that most IE-languages have more-or-less the same word for widow because the word 'widow' has an inherent quality making it sound like it should be to do with widows?



> structural parallels.
> Such as for example syllables as structurel similarities for Indo-european language, I suppose. It's just a theory. If you wear the syllable glasses, then you see syllables. You can also wear pink glasses, and the world will be pink.


By "structural" I more meant "grammatical" (sorry for being unclear/ambiguous/using-the-wrong-word). Though your explanation  makes it an awful lot of people apparently just "seeing what they want to see", as it were. (Is "x-many people are just deluded(/'wearing glasses')" an easier theory to test?)



> IE-ablaut
> The question is how ablaut in any way is explaned by the idea of a common source of indo-european language. Why should the world accept the idea of a common source of indo-european language, if the theory does not explain any of the above similarities?


Okay, okay. Let us assume, arguendo, that there is no PIE, forget about the other similarities (or things which are being alleged as similarities, whatever), what do suppose is the explanation for the IE-ablaut being evident in languages as far apart as Greek and German? Assuming that's more than "Just is.".

I feel like i'm asking you a lot of things already, but may I also enquire at what point going back you stop believing in a common source? I'm assuming (erroneously, perhaps) that you'll agree English comes from Old English, German comes from Old High German, and Danish comes from Old Norse. Do you think the theory that these all came from a common language, Proto-Germanic, is correct, and that it's further jumps from that to PIE that you don't like? Or does Proto-Germanic seem implausible to you as well? Or maybe some sort of middle ground? Pray elucidate.


----------



## sokol

Silly Barry said:


> “approximation to the truth” is an interesting point. How would one define this axiom?
> As you got no criteria of correspondence, because there's no “truth/false” available to correspond it to (it’s prehistoric), how could you possibly conduct such “approximation to the truth”?.


As I explained above in my second post: no Proto-Indoeuropean field studies exist and never will, because obviously we would need time travel for those (or extra-terrestrials who performed one and were gracious enough to hand over their results).
Second best would be written documents in Proto-Indoeuropean, but they do not exist either.

It is completely impossible to reconstruct a dead language fully by analysis of its descendants, the only thing achievable through this is establishing that a common ancestor must have existed.
Indo-European studies go back a long way, much evidence has been gathered as proof for this, that is - that there _*was*_ a common ancestor. I think only a philosopher ever could try in earnest to disprove this claim  - the arguments in favour are really overwhelming.

As you can see, I am not at all a specialist in Popper's epistemology; but as berndf explained above that sound shift laws are not falsifiable I think it is pretty pointless to find criticism against PIE theory - you couldn't possibly falsify the reconstruction of Proto-Indoeuropean, so this branch of linguistics anyway would fall into the metaphysics branch of science as defined by Popper.

To quote berndf's example, you can try to falsify "all ravens are black" - you cannot verify it, but falsifying is possible.
But to falsify a statement like the following is outright impossible: "the Proto-Indoeuropean system of vowel monophthongs consisted of /a e i o u/ plus long consonants who however developed secondary by deletion of a laryngal".
One can only reconstruct this system - by comparing several IE languages (as many as possible, obviously); the laryngal part of this theory for example is only based on Hittite, to postulate this one without taking Hittite into account would be extremely shaky.
Possibly there exist other IE languages which are long dead and of which no records are left - they could sustain or disprove this statement.

So IE linguists can only reconstruct Proto-IE to their best knowledge, and new discoveries (like said extra-terrestrials handing over tape recordings) could lead to refuting them.
You couldn't possibly achieve anything by Popper's philosophy here - you'd need the _ravens,_ so to speak, in order to being able to subjugate them to the falsification method.
But the Indo-European ravens, to stick to the metaphor, died out millenia ago.


----------



## Frank06

Silly Barry said:


> Let me just correct my questions to:
> 1. what sort of “similarities” PIE-Theory prefere to label “similarities”.
> 2. what sort of similarities PIE-Theory prefere NOT to label “similarities”.


Well, why don't you have a look at PIE theory, for starters?



> 1. common roots for words: Actually there exist logical explanations for certain common phonemes such that the word for "open" is - not surprisingly - to be pronounced with an open mouth.


Yeah, right. Just as 'closed', which is pronounced with the mouth closed, isn't it? 



> 2. structural parallels.
> Such as for example syllables as structurel similarities for Indo-european language, I suppose. It's just a theory. If you wear the syllable glasses, then you see syllables. You can also wear pink glasses, and the world will be pink.


What are you talking about? 



> 3.IE-ablaut
> The question is how ablaut in any way is explaned by the idea of a common source of indo-european language. Why should the world accept the idea of a common source of indo-european language, if the theory does not explain any of the above similarities?


What do you mean by this? 



> Thus they had the same original grammatic-leksical funktion, therefore these semivowel sounds didn't even have to be pronounced (muted d in scandinavia). People would choose what suited them best. ;-)
> Well, this explanation of course conflicts with established linguistic theories


Your explanation(s) doesn't (don't) make an awful lot of sense from a linguistic point of view.
(See also your explantion for 'open', widow, the/ye and other "thorn-confusions", simple > complex etc.)
I really start to wonder what your point is...

Which reminds me:


Silly Barry said:


> *widhewo is a less careful expression (to make it easier to read, presumably) and therefore that expression would be arguably weaker.


No, it depends on what you want to "express", early or late PIE. *widhewo is the late PIE notation, not the "less careful" one. By the way, what could "less careful" possibly mean in this context?? 



> An explanation for this will go: Both the _h_ and the _e_ in *widhewo could pretty much be anything from a schwa to a glottal stop and the _d_ wasn’t supposingly a “hard” d, but rather something like a “thorn” or “eth”-thing, which, at least in northern Europe, seems to be more or less interchangeable with Y, en pendant to “thou/you” thorn-confusion.


<dh> in *widhewo- represents an aspirated d (or dʰ); h is not a phoneme here, nor a laryngeal. Which implies that your "explanation" "_h_ and the _e_ in *widhewo could pretty much be anything from a schwa to a glottal stop" doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
I think you really should try to inform yourself a bit more about the topic of your critique, viz. ((P)IE) linguistics.

Frank


----------



## Hulalessar

The tasks of philosophy include:

(a) questioning assumptions; and,

(b) investigating the methods people use to reach conclusions.

Philosophy has done both of these things very thoroughly. If we take it that the position of philosophy is that there are few, if any, assumptions we can rely on and that no method of reasoning is reliable, whilst we need to bear that in mind, we need, if we are ever to find out anything, to put the findings of philosophy aside. David Hume understood this. Whilst he made what is perhaps the classic case for the unreliability of the conclusions of science by demonstrating that induction, by which science reaches its conclusions, is an unsound method of reasoning because the law of cause and effect cannot be proved, he did not on that account suggest that science should be abandoned. Indeed, he observed that anyone who insisted on proof for everything would starve to death.

All scientists, assuming as they surely must that the law of cause and effect is true, are aware that where event A follows event B it is not always the case that B causes A. The method of science is to show that where A follows B and causes other than B can reasonably be ruled out, B causes A. Even so, the philosophical position is not forgotten and so all scientific theories are regarded as provisional. On the whole the "hard" sciences have an easier time than the "social" sciences as they can turn to experimentation. Science tells us that metals expand when heated. If you wish you can ignore this finding, but if you build a railway and do not leave gaps between sections of rail you will find that the rails buckle in hot weather.

Some sciences, and all social sciences, have to rely on observation. Where they engage in experimentation (and even where they do not) the risk that all factors have not been taken into account is higher and they therefore have to be more tentative in their conclusions.

The comparative method works something like this:

1. Where there are sufficient records the changes that take place in language can be noted.

2. The changes may be seen not to be random so that certain specific rules may be formulated that say that where circumstances _x_ are in place, _y_ always changes to _z_.

3. The longer the records go back and the more instances one sees the more likely it is that the rules that appear to emerge are correct.

4. On the basis that one can formulate rules about language change by examining known instances of language change, it is possible to apply those rules and extrapolate backwards to form a hypothesis about unknown instances of language change.

What cannot be reasonably doubted (that is to say ignoring the philosophical position that we cannot be certain about anything) is that all languages classified as Indo-European are genetically related. That is not to say that you can set up a family tree in the same way you can to show a family history, though sometimes even that can be a bit tricky if there has been interbreeding. In fact the problem is that one can never be certain if there has been any "interbreeding" when it comes to languages as similarities/correspondences can be explained by factors such as an immediate common ancestor, convergence and parallel development. Whilst a dentritic diagram may not show everything and may to an extent be misleading it does show something. A wave model can expand on a dentritic diagram by showing influences not only from and between closely related but also more distantly related and unrelated languages.

Even where the evidence is extensive, if incomplete, as it is with the Romance languages, trying to decide precisely how languages relate to each other is not straightforward. Where there is less evidence the task is more difficult. The linguist's job is to try and sort it out. When linguists say that two or more languages have a common ancestor they are not necessarily saying that all the features come from that ancestor, nor are they necessarily insisting that there is a single common ancestor that explains features held in common. For practical purpose however when you are going back way beyond written records to theorise you have to settle for assuming there was a single proto-language, even if you concede the possibility that going backwards in time all Indo-European languages do not converge to one parent language.

Social sciences are as they are because they can be no other way. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise their methodologies, but to attack them because those methodologies do not comply with any philosopher's ideas about how the truth can be arrived at is a futile exercise unless your aim is to prove that the social sciences are worthless.


----------



## sokol

Hulalessar said:


> Social sciences are as they are because they can be no other way. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise their methodologies, but to attack them because those methodologies do not comply with any philosopher's ideas about how the truth can be arrived at is a futile exercise unless your aim is to prove that the social sciences are worthless.


Well put if I may say so. 

I can only subscribe to that statement.


----------



## Silly Barry

Frank said:


> I don't think etymological dictionaries should be read without at least a basic understanding of linguistics and historical linguistics. This may sound terribly snotty, but there is an enormously huge amount of linguistic literature for that, to be found in libraries.


The claim that etymological dictionaries are useless for non-linguists is interesting. I'll take note. J 



> It has proven its value (e.g. in case of de Saussure's "prediction" of what we now call laryngeals).


Really? The only agreed upon definition of laryngeals were at that time, not much more advanced than: “according to our model there must be something, but we don’t know what it is. Let’s call it laryngeals! 

To claim that the discovery of something loosely predicted, nobody knew what was or could completely define, is hard evidence of the value of PIE-theory, isn't that going a bit far?

Let’s formalize that argument:

P1. There must have been something. We can’t explain what it is (we call it h1, h2, h3, or a thing like that).
P2. Emperical examination says yes, there was such thing we didn’t know what was. (Let’s call it h1, h2, h3, etc.)

Conclusion. PIE-theory is useful for making predictions, hallelujah. 

I have no doubt, the good Saussure might as well, have predicted that the moon is made of laryngeals. If someone says “nonsense it’s stone and sand”, Saussure could say: “Yes, laryngeals. Let’s call it h1, h2, h3, etc , as I predicted!

Do you have any other examples of predictions, as evidence for the usefulness of PIE-theory?



> ....().That's how the notion Occam's razor is normally used and that's completely different from what you say.


I highlighted the principle of the simple solution and put Ochhams razor in brackets. 
As I see it, “the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions” is based on the assumption that the "simple" solution is prefered. I am speaking in general of the functionally very strong axiom, which theoretically turns around in regress: “I have to choose the simple solution, because the simply solution is preferred”. It’s not provable in the mathematical sense but it seems to be quite popular in science and technology as well as in daily life.




> Ever considered the idea that you're starting point is wrong? I know the argument "anything complex must derive from something more simple" from Richard Dawkins (among others) with regards to evolution theory, but it doesn't take a lot of effort to see that *PIE* linguistics is not evolutionary biology. On the other hand, PIE dates back to 7/5000 years BC.


Is that really so! And this, I suppose is evidently true thanks to the "simple solution" of estimating pure "lexical halflife" in glottochronolography?  



> Theoretically, that would leave us with enough millennia, 90 or so, to speculate about language going from a simple to a complex system. Alas, in reality, we don't know anything and cannot know anything for sure about those initial 90.000 (or so) years due to the lack of attestations and the lack of methods to come to a widely accepted reconstruction.


What name should we give to that phenomenon? “The impotence of linguistic etymology for 99% of prehistoric language”?


> Mutations? Again, we're not talking DNA, we're talking linguistics. It seems to me you're applying a different frame of reference.


In fact the word “mutation” is much older than the science of genetics. Mutation is an interesting word that simply means “changing”, which in etymology and linguistics is useful as a term for changes (=shifts), that conflicts with already established conventions such as Grimm’s law as Verner’s law, and consequently requires ad-hoc-explantions.

- We can also call it the boogiemen J

A classic example, as I understand, which has been discussed in linguistics is: Bruder/brother.


----------



## Alxmrphi

There are two things I take issue with:



> What name should we give to that phenomenon? “The impotence of linguistic etymology for 99% of prehistoric language”?


Why do you have to give it a name at all? Does linguistic etymology claim to know everything or not? (Of course not, nowhere near). The idea of you creating this name to somehow lend weight to your (mis)understanding of what historical linguistics aims are is so so misguided. It's like saying "history" is flawed because it can't tell us exactly what killed the dinosaurs, absolute nonsense! History can only shed light on a tiny tiny fraction of the history of the world, science can hypothesize about some other details, is history useless and impotent and not worth of study because of its recent base of knowledge?



> Frank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think etymological dictionaries should be read without at least a basic understanding of linguistics and historical linguistics. This may sound terribly snotty, but there is an enormously huge amount of linguistic literature for that, to be found in libraries.
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that etymological dictionaries are useless for non-linguists are interesting. I'll take note. J
Click to expand...

How you got "_useless for non-linguistics_" from Frank's "_should not be read without at least a basic understanding of linguistics_" is way beyond me, you seem to be misrepresenting what other people are saying.

The general impression I get from you is that the idea that you disagree with is forced upon you and you want to challenge it, it's not like that, there are people who can sit in a room with their hands over their ears not believing it without solid proof, you can absolutely subscribe to them.


----------



## Frank06

Silly Barry.

I understand that you do not agree with the reconstruction of 7000+ years old PIE roots. We discuss about it and we disagree. Fair enough.
But I find your representation and interpretation of my words, which were written _only a few days ago_, unfair and even dishonest.


Silly Barry said:


> The claim that etymological dictionaries are useless for non-linguists is interesting. I'll take note.


While I wrote (and I'll copy my words, not reconstruct them):





			
				Frank06 said:
			
		

> I don't think etymological dictionaries should be read without at least a basic understanding of linguistics and historical linguistics.





> Is that really so! And this, I suppose is evidently true thanks to the "simple solution" of estimating pure "lexical halflife" in glottochronolography?


In almost every modern mainstream introductory work on historical linguistics you'll find loads of critique on glottochronolography (and also discussion of de Saussure, Hittite and laryngeals, which you might find revealing).



> What name should we give to that phenomenon? “The impotence of linguistic etymology for 99% of prehistoric language”?


Historical linguists say they don't know. Well, they cannot know. No attestations, no recordings, nothing. Is that impotence?
On the one hand it's a pity. On the other hand, I do find it a blessing, Silly Barry, that there are still people who _do not_ discuss stuff they don't know an awful lot about.

Frank


----------



## Silly Barry

> <dh> in *widhewo- represents an aspirated d (or dʰ); h is not a phoneme here, nor a laryngeal. Which implies that your "explanation" "_h_ and the _e_ in *widhewo could pretty much be anything from a schwa to a glottal stop" doesn't make an awful lot of sense.


 
Sorry Frank I was a little careless. My answer was meant as a general explanation for some of the reasons that some traces can’t be judged effectively. I admit this had nothing really to do in relation to the specific PIE-notation (I didn’t even look at it), and in that context it doesn’t make any sense, you’re quite right. 

Let me try again, and please correct me if I’m wrong.

h1wid(h)wéh2h1e

h1 is not defined and according to many scholars it can easily be a glottal stop. however, it’s easy to see that a glottal stop does not make an awful lot of sense in the first position (a stop from what?). 

There is possibly linguists who prefer to hear a glottal stop as a “sound”. How that's is possible, I couldn’t tell you ;-)

There are some scholars who believe h1 could also be the Germanic H-sound, and according to other scholars, maybe even a vowel. Yet other scholars even believe that h1 can be two sounds, and one of these “sounds” could be a glottal stop. - I honestly thought all this could be the reason not to notate it for late PIE, if no other evidence for it was available. 

And actually I suspected that the DH of *widhewo was an aspirated d, but I couldn’t be sure, as it seems a bit vague to me when DH is inside a word, How is one supposed to distinguish between the separate D and H and DH (aspirated d) when “reading” a reconstruction?




> Secondly, according to your train of thought, a morphologically more complex language (let's take Latin) cannot be the ancestor of a language which is morphologically less complex, let's take French.


 

Frank must be aware that complex morphology is partly explained as a function to provide less ambiguity per amount of words (fewer words= simpler). 

Let me demonstrate this:

I say in Spanish “Tengo!”. This is only one word. That’s simple!
Then in Danish “jeg har”, that’s to words. It’s too complicated!
Let me sort it out: ”har-jeg – har-du – har-han” - by creating these fine new compounds. And then after deletion: häg, häd hän, -nice simple three letter words. The system is logically very simple. Why would anyone think that’s complicated?




> Or to give another example: according to you, "alstublieft" cannot come from the more complex phrase "als het u belieft" (It's Dutch and it doesn't matter what it means). Quite a task you'll have to substantiate that.


 

Quite a task?
Well if people is to understand this right, you better say which of these words "als, het, u, belieft" is to be considered more complicated than the word “alstublieft” 

They seem simple to me ;-)

The phrase "alstublieft" is an interesting example of what is called a compound abbreviation. this example is used to prove that in this case "simple" comes from "complicated", but actually it says the quite opposite and Frank’s example seems to conflict a great deal with the logic behind PIE-theory. How so?

The interesting thing about these compound abbreviations is that it's basicly thanks to historical sources that Frank can inform us, exactly what they are derived from. Well, this can probably be guessed in the "alstublieft" case, but not always for all compound abbreviations. 

The interesting question is: If historic sources did not exist for the compound, how would PIE-theory make the linguists able to explain, from where such words was derived? 

Imagine any IE word to be such a compound abbreviation, why not the compound "Nacht - nach-acht" (a classic). 
Linguists would possibly reconstruct something like *nek()-t . But any suggestions of compounds would probably be denied right away, as they conflict with the beautyful mother theory.

In the case of alstublieft", it’s easy to see why PIE-“reconstruction” would never provide us with the right answer in such a case. Reconstruction would simply be the wrong tool and any attempt of reconstruction would therefore be useless. 

Rather it seems that if one wants to find back to the original words and provide an explanation, the word must be deconstructed to something simpler (eg. als, het, u, belieft), - not just reconstructed to other notations.


----------



## Silly Barry

"But I find your representation and interpretation of my words, which were written _only a few days ago_, unfair and even dishonest."

I'm sorry for that Frank! this was not my attention,
-it was only to question certain views, as I was myself questioned.


----------



## Hulalessar

Silly Barry said:


> however, it’s easy to see that a glottal stop does not make an awful lot of sense in the first position (a stop from what?).
> 
> There is possibly linguists who prefer to hear a glottal stop as a “sound”. How that's is possible, I couldn’t tell you



In linguistics "stop" means a sound produced by obstructing the airflow. /k/ /t/ and /p/ are stops. With the glottal stop the air is obstructed in the glottis rather than in the mouth. If you speak a language in which the glottal stop is not phonemic and accordingly has no symbol to represent it in writing, there is a tendency to think it is not a "proper" sound. There are languages where the glottal stop can come at the beginning of a breath group. Arabic not only has that phonological feature, but also represents it in writing; see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> h1 is not defined and according to many scholars it can easily be a glottal stop. however, it’s easy to see that a glottal stop does not make an awful lot of sense in the first position (a stop from what?).
> 
> There is possibly linguists who prefer to hear a glottal stop as a “sound”. How that's is possible, I couldn’t tell you ;-)


Sorry having to say that, but ignorance on your part it not a counterargument against this reconstruction of h1.

Take the time to learn just the basics of a language where the glottal stop has phonemic significance (e.g. Arabic or Hebrew) and you will be able to tell.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Las laringales no son propiamente sonidos, sino *coeficientes sonánticos* que en ciertos "ambientes" fonéticos, pueden constituirse en _núcleo de sílaba_, adquiriendo una de las tres coloraciones vocálicas, H1, H2, H3, [*e*], [*a*], [*o*].
Por otro lado, las _laringales con apéndice palatal o labial_ Hy Hw, desembocan muchas veces en los ambientes fonéticos adecuados, en los _fonemas consonáticos_ (_periferias silábicas_) _yod_ y _wau_, [*y*] y [*w*].
N. B.: Los apéndices palatal y gutural se ponen sobreescritos, pero el procesador de textos del foro no lo permite, o yo no sé.


----------



## sokol

SillyBarry,

I only would like to quote a well-known Greek philosopher, with "I know that I know nothing": some philosophers start at this point, and try to find out more.

That's the attitude of a good Indo-European linguist (for my money at least).

By the method of a well-known Austro-British philosopher, one would have to start with "The only knowledge available is falsified knowledge".
That's fair enough, it is a different attitude and a different solution to the problem.

But if you stick to this philosophy then most of modern humanities studies would be negated (not only many branches of linguistics but also history, historical philosophy, literature studies, all branches of sociology which aren't strictly empirical, politology, etc. etc. etc.).

That's why Popper "allowed", in _*his*_ model of thinking, for alternative studies (what he calls >metaphysics<, a term which is misleading because mostly this term is used for occult sciences ;-).

So if you want to think according to Popper that's fair enough, but you cannot expect that everybody else too would like to do so.
By your point of view it seems that there possibly could not be any "value" in studying history of languages; if I'm wrong I'm sorry for misinterpreting you - but that's how you're coming over.  That'd be not in the sense of Popper's philosophy, if I've understood the latter correctly.

So to cut the long story short, the terms in which you try to find criticism for PIE theory just seem not apply to it (so why bother?).


----------



## Silly Barry

Adressing Hulalessar

Thank you for your great posts that I think everybody enjoys.

Yes. I know about the "stop" terminology, but I have indeed been under the impression that there had to be an airflow before a stop can occure. This seems for me to be the only logical sense when studying examples like these in typical English "sto-p", ca-t, butt-n .
- or even danish gar-n (but not in "hånd", as wiki seem to think, it must be an error ;-) .

Is it wrong that it is possible in English, to understand at least these certain examples as a simple break in airflow, (sounding like the sound between two vowels which could not be mixed or in a break before vocalic r)?

Don't get me wrong, I know how English is pronounced, I just simply hear a soft break only, and I supposed that break was to be described as a glottal stop. If not the break what would then be the glottal stop? - And in that case how would one notate simply the break (without the stop)?


Thanks


----------



## Silly Barry

> By the method of a well-known Austro-British philosopher, one would have to start with "The only knowledge available is falsified knowledge".
> That's fair enough, it is a different attitude and a different solution to the problem.
> 
> But if you stick to this philosophy then most of modern humanities studies would be negated (not only many branches of linguistics but also history, historical philosophy, literature studies, all branches of sociology which aren't strictly empirical, politology, etc. etc. etc.).
> 
> That's why Popper "allowed", in _*his*_ model of thinking, for alternative studies (what he calls >metaphysics<, a term which is misleading because mostly this term is used for occult sciences ;-).
> 
> So if you want to think according to Popper that's fair enough, but you cannot expect that everybody else too would like to do so.
> By your point of view it seems that there possibly could not be any "value" in studying history of languages; if I'm wrong I'm sorry for misinterpreting you - but that's how you're coming over.  That'd be not in the sense of Popper's philosophy, if I've understood the latter correctly.



You need not to worry to much about Popper ;-)
 as I said:

"It should be clear now that Popper's criteria of falsification is only the first step in the systematic description of the category to which PIE-theory belongs." 

"Needless to say, this principle is not sufficient as a demarcation principle for science."


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> If not the break what would then be the glottal stop?


A stop is a sound where a complete blockage of the airflow is involved. The sudden release of this blockage produces characteristic sounds. E.g. /p/ is a "labial stop" because the airflow is blocked by closing the  lips. the sound is produced by building up pressure behind the closed lips and then suddenly releasing the pressure by opening the lips. The glottal stop is a stop consonant produced by closure of the airflow at the glottis.


----------



## Hulalessar

A break is an intersegmental prosodeme and is what you get between the /k/ and /b/ when you say in English "black bird" but not when you say "blackbird". A glottal stop is something different and is a consonant. It does not occur in Standard Southern English (at least not in careful speech) and is the sound to be heard in some regional pronunciations (famously, but not exclusively, Cockney) of "water" where a glottal stop replaces the /t/.


----------



## ireney

Hello Silly Billy,
I have been following this discussion since the beginning but I'm afraid I got a bit lost. Now I have to say that I have some trouble following your argument although I have studied philosophy myself and know a few things about linguistics. The thing is, I've always liked best those philosophers who can present the questions they will address clearly at the beginning of their work and then present their arguments in a similar manner. In other words more Aristotle than Plato to go back to the ancient times*. Can you do the same for me? A sort of list? Kind of like "PIE doesn't exist" Arguments against its existence 1,2,3? Please?

* speaking of ancient times and more particularly ancient Greece. If you want a perfect example of how something simpler can come from something more complex you may as well check the grammatical and phonological evolution of the Greek language. It has the added "bonus" of us having plenty of written resources of the language through the ages.


----------



## Silly Barry

> Hello Silly Billy,
> I have been following this discussion since the beginning but I'm afraid I got a bit lost. Now I have to say that I have some trouble following your argument although I have studied philosophy myself and know a few things about linguistics. The thing is, I've always liked best those philosophers who can present the questions they will address clearly at the beginning of their work and then present their arguments in a similar manner. In other words more Aristotle than Plato to go back to the ancient times*. Can you do the same for me? A sort of list? Kind of like "PIE doesn't exist" Arguments against its existence 1,2,3? Please?


 
I'll have to leave now. But yes maybe I will. 



> * speaking of ancient times and more particularly ancient Greece. If you want a perfect example of how something simpler can come from something more complex you may as well check the grammatical and phonological evolution of the Greek language. It has the added "bonus" of us having plenty of written resources of the language through the ages.


 
I'm talking expressions, not language. But as I said: There's a tendency to develope a simple (common?) tongue. (Because simple is preferred). The same logic goes for compound abbreviations (read my last post to Frank, please) 

So I agree! If you by complicated mean compound abbreviations and such. But the problem with this is that PIE-theory simply cannot DIVIDE compound abbreviations (as I PROVED I my last post to Frank). This is a very interesting point, I think.

What if all PIE-words were logical compound abbreviations?

Sorry guys, I must leave now


----------



## Silly Barry

Hulalessor helped me:



> A break is an intrasegmental prosodeme and is what you get between the /k/ and /b/ when you say in English "black bird" but not when you say "blackbird". A glottal stop is something different and is a consonant. It does not occur in Standard Southern English (at least not in careful speech) and is the sound to be heard in some regional pronunciations (famously, but exclusively, Cockney) of "water" where a glottal stop replaces the /t/


. 

Superp!

It is now clear to me how I was fooled by several examples of glottal stops in the English language, that I've seen in books of linguistics, as well as on Wiki. It seems now, these specific examples are not truly valid, at least not for standard Southern Snglish in careful speach. 

As I understand it: What I described as a break is a phenomenon bearing a wonderful name "intrasegmental prosodeme". 

Actually, there are no entries on WIKI(eng/ger/span/ital/port/neth) on this subject (?!)


----------



## Hulalessar

Silly Barry said:


> As I understand it: What I described as a break is a phenomenon bearing a wonderful name "intrasegmental prosodeme".



Actually it should have been "_inter_segmental".

I also managed to leave a "not" out before "exclusively".

A prosodeme, or prosodic phoneme, is a "prosodic feature accompanying linear or segmental phonemes in the flow of speech."

There are the suprasegmental prosodemes of duration, pitch and stress and the intersegmental prosodeme of juncture.

The word does not seem to be used a lot. Perhaps a different word is favoured these days.

Considered phonetically, juncture and a glottal stop are different things as they are articulated differently. Considered phonologically, a glottal stop can function as a consonant in languages like Arabic and Cockney English, but as a prosodeme in a tonal language like Vietnamese.


----------



## Frank06

Silly Barry said:


> [*]h1wid(h)wéh2h1e
> [...]And actually I suspected that the DH of *widhewo was an aspirated d, but I couldn’t be sure, as it seems a bit vague to me when DH is inside a word, How is one supposed to distinguish between the separate D and H and DH (aspirated d) when “reading” a reconstruction?


In this specific case, knowing that Germanic has -d- and keeping Grimm in mind, it's fairly easy to interpret PIE -dh-. It's even quite basic...


> Well, this can probably be guessed in the "alstublieft" case, but not always for all compound abbreviations.


What do you mean by "compound abbreviation" in general and in this case? 


> Imagine any IE word to be such a compound abbreviation, why not the compound "Nacht - nach-acht" (a classic).
> Linguists would possibly reconstruct something like *nek()-t . But any suggestions of compounds would probably be denied right away, as they conflict with the beautyful mother theory.


What exactly do you mean by nacht/acht, mother theory, and denied?

Frank


----------



## Silly Barry

> What do you mean by "compound abbreviation" in general and in this case?


 
By "compound abbreviations" I refer to abbreviations of compounds of words OR compounds of abbreviated words. Well known examples will include words like Gestapo, Interpol, agitprop, psy-ops, etc.

In this sense a possible invention of a word like "Interpol-psyops" could be seen as a compound of compounds of abbreviations ;-)



> What exactly do you mean by nacht/acht


 
Nach means "towards", "next to". Acht means "division", "ending", "eight". It is to be presumed that in prehistoric times, numbers were imagined as signs in the form of letters, used as notation on sun dials. Nach acht (nacht) would be a term for the end of the stretch of the sun dial timeline display, with a sense of "near out", possibly cognate to "north" and Scandinavian word "ned" (down) 

There are reasons to believe that in celtic calendar among others, daily time-line started after sun setting. The eighth hour (the edge hour) would accordingly have been near the 10 o'clock position (or the direction of the sun setting on the longest day), and would most probably have been symbolized by the letter X. 

In antique Greek X was known as "chi", perhaps cognate with Old Northern "tio", Danish "ti" and Dutch "tien". 

For Elder Futhark the name of the letter X has been reconstructed to "*gebo", but it is also quite possible logically and linguistically to interpret the X as a compound of syllabary letters turned into a consonant cluster, with original pronounciations close to eich-che, eith-ge, eith-ye, or ed-je, derived from names of signs possibly cognate with Phoenician letters Teth (9. letter of Phoenician alphabet) and Yod (10. letter of many Semitic abjads). 

With the addition of a possible intersegmental vowel-sound, this interpretation also offers an elegant explanation as to how the X of Elder Futhark, can be seen as cognate with "decem", "deka" etc. 

It also makes it possible to establish relation between words "eight" "out" and "exire" (to exit).

It might all be speculations, yes. Well, that is a thing called etymology ;-)


----------



## Lugubert

Silly Barry said:


> Nach means "towards", "next to". Acht means "division", "ending", "eight". It is to be presumed that in prehistoric times, numbers were imagined as signs in the form of letters, used as notation on sun dials. Nach acht (nacht) would be a term for the end of the stretch of the sun dial timeline display, with a sense of "near out", possibly cognate to "north" and scandinavian word "ned" (down)


So you think that modern German is the origin of Sanskrit _naktam_? You'll have to try way better to convince me. Even the Nostratic theory sounds sensible in comparison.


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> It might all be speculations, yes. Well, that is a thing called etymology ;-)


I am afraid, it is not even speculation, let alone etymology. It is a concatenation of inconsistent associations. You are using associations which only work in modern German and teleport them back in time (as Lugubert already criticized) to the Celts. Then you are talking about "pre historic times" arguing with letters which is a contradiction in terms.

Coming back to methodological considerations: You are obviously not accepting the common meta-theory behind all etymology that newer languages evolve out of older ones, sometimes loosing features, sometimes changing them and sometimes inventing new ones. You obviously have a different idea how languages develop. Unless you outline your meta-theory of language which would have to explain the apparent inconsistencies in your argumentation, we cannot even consider your arguments as speculation but have to discard them as semantically meaningless.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Initially, you were looking for critique on PIE linguistics, which, according to your rather ideosyncratic and selective interpretation of Popper, cannot be falsified and hence cannot be regarded as "real science". Fair enough. 

Secondly, you dismissed PIE (linguistics), but you never ever pointed out why (give and take a few vague statements), despite the question by Ireney:


> I've always liked best those philosophers who can present the questions they will address clearly at the beginning of their work and then present their arguments in a similar manner. [...] Can you do the same for me? A sort of list? Kind of like "PIE doesn't exist" Arguments against its existence 1,2,3? Please?


It's never to late to get this thread back on topic and give a list of your objections.

But then you decided to shift gears...


Silly Barry said:


> By "compound abbreviations" I refer to abbreviations of compounds of words OR compounds of abbreviated words. Well known examples will include words like Gestapo, Interpol, agitprop, psy-ops, etc.


Thank you for your explanation, but we can only conclude from this that it has *nothing at all* to do with "alstublieft/als het u belieft".



> Nach means "towards", "next to". Acht means "division", "ending", "eight". It is to be presumed that in prehistoric times


Hold it... what makes you shift from two modern German words to "prehistoric times"??? (I also wonder about "acht" meaning "division" and "ending", but my German isn't that great).
The gap of a few 1000 years may not bother you, it does bother me.
Now, you seem to have been wondering a lot about the methodology used in mainstream historical linguistics. I guess that it would be best, before continuing with this issue, that you explain *your* methodology, if any.



> Nach acht (nacht) would be a term for the end of the stretch of the sun dial timeline display


Hey, now you're throwing in a third word, one that looks similar to the other two words and one that also looks suspicioulsy _contemporary_. Wouldn't it better to take the oldest attestations as a starting point?



> with a sense of "near out", possibly cognate to "north" and scandinavian word "ned" (down)


Do you mean that "nacht" and "north" are cognates? If so, on which basis do you consider them to be cognates. Since you're not willing to stick to the 'traditional' methodology, how do you arrive at this conclusion? Similarity? Whatever that can mean? 
I am also curious how you define _cognate_. Again, since you dismiss mainstream theories, your definition must be different from the widely accepted one.
Or do you just want to point out that "nacht" and "north" look a bit similar (well, they start with an 'n', have a vowel, a 't' in the end and they both have 'h' somewhere). But is that enough to come up with dramatic speculations? 



> There are reasons to believe that in celtic calendar among others,


Wow, hold it. You started with modern German words, now you're continuing with speculations on Celtic calendars...



> In antique greek X was known as "chi",


... and then you go to the Greek alphabet. Where is it going to end?



> perhaps cognate with old northern "tio", danish "ti" and dutch "tien".


What's "Old Northern" (are you inventing your own terms here?). At least, with Danish and Dutch we're close to our starting point again, viz. German. 



> For Elder Futhark the name of the letter X has been reconstructed to "*gebo, but it is also *quite possible logically and linguistically *to interpret the X as a compound of syllabary letters turned into a consonant cluster, with original pronounciations close to eich-che, eith-ge, eith-ye, or ed-je, derived from names of signs possibly cognate with phoenician letters Teth (9. letter of phoenician alphabet) and Yod (10. letter of many semitic abjads).


"Quite logically and linguistically"? No, not really, not to me. Maybe it would become more clear (and logic) if you could explain the methods you're using here.



> With the addition of a possible intersegmental vowel-sound,


Wait, wait. In a previous post, I read about how much you were opposed to the alleged ad-hoc solutions in mainstream PIE linguistics. But now... how more ad hoc than a "possible intersegmental vowel-sound" can ad hoc be? Are you forgetting your own critique?


> eich-che, eith-ge, eith-ye, or ed-je


And hence "ed-je" > acht?
I am afraid you're going to have quite some work to convince us that this series is not an ad-hoc solution. So far, you're giving us the impression that you mistake wordplays for linguistics. So, again, what's your methodology here? What is the basis, if any, for your assumptions?



> this interpretation also offers an elegant explanation as to how the X of Elder Futhark, can be seen as cognate with "decem", "deka" etc.


It does, does it?
Do I understand you well? Are you saying that you are using X to explain both _acht_ and _dekem_?



> It also makes it possible to establish relation between words "eight" "out" and "exire" (to exit).


Is it? Please start with explaining the term "relation" and then explain what "eight" has to do with "out" and "ex-ire".



> It might all be speculations, yes.


Just one question: don't you think that your theories aren't "philosofically and theoretically somewhat controversial", to use your very own opening statement of this thread.
But I have got a speculation of my own: you used Popper and your "critique" on PIE in the beginning of this thread only as an an excuse, a pretext to launch your own ideosyncratic "linguistic" theory.
[And re-reading your explanations about Celtic calendars, Greek alphabets and Semitic abjads, I wonder where Occham's razor is now that we need it?]


> Well, that is a thing called etymology ;-)


No, that is not a thing called etymology. Definitely not. There are other words for that, none of which are to be found back in a lexicon of linguistic terminology.

Frank


----------



## Hulalessar

Silly Barry said:


> By "compound abbreviations" etc etc



I think you are trying to do a lot of spadework that has already been done and done well over a century ago. It does not take much to show that your proposed etymology of German _nacht_, though delightfully fanciful, is wrong. See here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=night&searchmode=none

I think what you may be driving at is that some words may be latent or obscured compounds. In English for example we have the word _lord_ which etymologically is _hlaf_ ("bread", cf "loaf") + _weard_ ("keeper" cf "ward"). (It is interesting to note in passing that in Modern English _loaf_ no longer refers to bread as such but its form, so that etymologically "a loaf of bread" means "a bread of bread".) Whilst some latent compounds can be spotted with certainty because we have the necessary written records, others may be undiscoverable, but that should not stop speculation. I also think it is important to distinguish between acronyms such as _Interpol _from latent compounds such as _lord_; the former are deliberate creations arising only because the language in which they are formed is written down, whilst the latter are the result of normal and unconscious language change.

When it comes to working out etymologies you have to make word lists of languages and compare them; that is indeed the starting (but not end) point of the  comparative method. It is only the starting point because linguists are acutely aware that the extent to which any two languages share a common lexicon is not necessarily a reliable indicator of their degree of genetic relatedness. It is also important to realise that it is not just similarities but correspondences that need to be looked for. If you compile a word list of English and Latin you will find the words _hound_,_ hot_, _hundred_ and _hat_ in the English list and _canis_, _calidus_, _centum _and _cassis_ in the Latin list. Once you see the correspondences it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that English /h/ is equivalent to Latin /k/, at least in word initial position, and the more examples you find the more reasonable the conclusion.

The idea of a "word" is an important one in linguistics (at least when considering Indo-European languages) but linguists soon found the concept a bit slippery. It is not always easy to say with certainty where word boundaries occur. For non-linguists whether something is one word or two or more may be determined simply by the conventions of writing. There is also a feeling that a single syllable can never be more than one word. To deal with this linguists have come up with concepts such as the morpheme and clitic.


----------



## Silly Barry

Lugubert said:


> So you think that modern German is the origin of Sanskrit _naktam_?


No Sir  
I only gave an example in modern German as it is possible to do as well in other European languages. It would be an assumption to believe that the same logic would not work for Sanskrit. 

Actually, we must consider that naktam does not mean “night”, but rather “at night” just like the modern German phrase “am nacht”. 

- And may I ask you: Is it not possible that the “-am” part in both languages, would describe the same meaning as the –um, -em ending in northwest European placenames?

These “–um” placenames follow the north-sea cost from north of Jutland over northwest Germany, and into Friesland/Netherlands. The names are presumed by placename researchers to be from the bronze-age. 

The many different pronunciations (hemma, hjemme, gemme),of words presumably derived from this “–am/–um” syllable, suggest that the vowel is the most important part of the construction, triggering some kind of semi-vocalic pronunciation - comparable to the effects of the Greek letters Eta or Upsilon (hyoid) in a front-position - in order to turn that vowel into a word – to define it). 

In the syllabary writing system of Linear B the vowel E, seems to denote the “substance: sheath”, but standing alone, this E would probably have been pronounced in neutral form with inherent semivowels in the start and end, (probably as something close to hie-E-ath, see Upsilon (hyoid).

It’s quite easy to establish, that the S in sheath, means not much more than “that which itself is...”. J

Berndf says: 



> I am afraid, it is not even speculation, let alone etymology. It is a concatenation of inconsistent associations. You are using associations which only work in modern German and teleport them back in time (as Lugubert already criticized) to the Celts.


Frank says:



> Wow, hold it. You started with modern German words, now you're continuing with speculations on Celtic calendars...()…No, that is not a thing called etymology. Definitely not.


 
Gentlemen, you are apparently not very well informed, so let me help you out. First: I’m not doing any teleporting. The reason I refer to the calendar of the celts is because it is ATTESTED!
And allow me to refer to Weekley, Ernest, *An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English:*

"The fact that the Aryans have a common name for night, but not for day (q.v.), is due to the fact that they reckoned by nights."

Exactly as I speculated, and with that fact settled, let me then settle the second: The fact that the word “nacht” (and any of it’s European “brothers”) can be described as a “first level” compound of words close to the sound and meaning of the modern german “nach” and “acht”, can’t possibly be too controversial in the corridors of etymology. 

Let me point to the fact that “Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog” (1966), actually goes even further suggesting that the root for the word “Nach” *nehw- derives from a compound of *PIE reconstructions *an and *ok. 

Call the above etymologies “semantic meaningless” if you feel like, but they are etymology just the same, That's a FACT!




> Coming back to methodological considerations: You are obviously not accepting the common meta-theory behind all etymology that newer languages evolve out of older ones, sometimes loosing features, sometimes changing them and sometimes inventing new ones.


 
You are wrong, sir: I simply question two assumptions: 
1. That the postulate “All Indo-European languages derive from one PIE language (or continuum)” should be seen as a fact, rather than as one certain method (a functional idealism) among other possible methods.

2. That PIE-reconstructions can constitute a “true” or “full” etymology and explanation for European words.

Apart from that I question as to what degree PIE-theory, could possibly claim to be a "functional" theory.
By functional I mean 
A. Which can be valued functionally.
B. Which brings functional explanations (such as describing cause/effect).

#1 leads to #2.

Frank asked:


> Do I understand you well? Are you saying that you are using X to explain both _acht_ and _dekem_?


Yes, you understand it correctly. The eighth (outgoing) daytime hour would be going between 8 o’clock position towards the 10 o’clock position (approximately the point of the sun setting at the longest day in north europe), therefore X as “eth-CHI”, would be used to describe the late hour as it passed the X, just before the new time reckoning, where as “eighth” (outgoing) would be used for the hour until the hinge (H) of the X, which is the loop hole “-“ in ed-je, after which the sun will never cast its shadow.

Frank speculates:



> But I have got a speculation of my own: you used Popper and your "critique" on PIE in the beginning of this thread only as an an excuse, a pretext to launch your own ideosyncratic "linguistic" theory.


 
Nah, this is not fair! I was not here to launch anything, and I have not participated in discussions on any other threads on this respectable forum. I posed an open and fair question about sources for criticism of PIE-theory?. How am I to blame for other people posing sharp questions to me? Questions that changed the subject of the thread, which was only a simple request for sources for criticism of PIE-theory?

The first thing I wrote in my first answer was: 
“Gentlemen I'm honoured, though I'm afraid we are about to violate a certain rule #2.”

I will come back for further discussions on your questions concerning my methology.


----------



## berndf

Barry,

I think, I am slowly trying to understand what you want to express. You object to PIE reconstruction to be the only or ultimate source of any etymological explanation. You are saying that there are also other possible mechanisms for the creation of words, like _contraction_ of expressions into a single word.

This is absolutely true and is not contested by anyone. An example of this is _constellation_ which is derived from Latin_ cum (with) + stella (star)_.

But this explanation must be applied at the level where the innovation occurred. You cannot apply this method to explain the etymology in a language which has already inherited the word from an older one.

Let's take your example:



Silly Barry said:


> Exactly as I speculated, and with that fact settled, let me then settle the second: The fact that the word “nacht” (and any of it’s European “brothers”) can be described as a “first level” compound of words close to the sound and meaning of the modern german “nach” and “acht”, can’t possibly be too controversial in the corridors of etymology.





Silly Barry said:


> Let me point to the fact that “Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog” (1966), actually goes even further suggesting that the root for the word “Nach” *nehw- derives from a compound of *PIE reconstructions *an and *ok.


Going back to the attested West-Germanic roots we know that
_- Nacht_ is derived from Old High German _naht_, Anglo-Saxon _nyht_, Modern English _night_. (Non-initial "h" became either mute in German of developed into "ch" which in English it became "gh". Anglo-Saxon "y" become "i" or, less frequently, "u".)
_- Acht_ is derived from Old High German _ahto_, Anglo-Saxon _eahta_ which became _eight_ in English.
_- Nach_ is etymologically a variation of _nah_ (where the "h" is mute) both being derived from Old High German _nah_, Anglo-Saxon _neah_, modern English _nigh_, an archaic/poetic variant of _near_.

In West-Germanic a derivation of _naht_ from _nah aht_ would still be possible but your argument would have to be modified because _nah aht_ means _near eight_ and not _after eight_.

Any going even further mach in time, the similarity between _naht_ and _ahto_ must have existed already in earlier development stages than Proto-Germanic because we have the Latin cognate stems _noct- (night)_ and _oct-_ _(eight)_.

If you still wanted to explain _Nacht _as _nach + acht_, you had to explain it based on a much older etymon of _nach_ and based on the meaning it had back then.


----------



## Flaminius

Hi,



Silly Barry said:


> The many different pronunciations (hemma, hjemme, gemme),of words presumably derived from this “–am/–um” syllable, suggest that the vowel is the most important part of the construction, triggering some kind of semi-vocalic pronunciation - comparable to the effects of the greek letters Eta or Upsilon (hyoid) in a front-position - in order to turn that vowel into a word – to define it).
> 
> In the syllabary writing system of linear b the vowel E, seems to denote the “substance: sheath”, but standing alone, this E would probably have been pronounced in neutral form with inherent semivowels in the start and end, (probably as something close to hie-E-ath, see Upsilon (hyoid).
> 
> It’s quite easy to establish, that the S in sheath, means not much more than “that which itself is...”. J



It would be best if you could please tell us how analyzing the Sanskrit word _naktam_ justifies considerations to the effects of letters used in Greek and Linear B.  You might manage to prove the points marked by blue ink, but I don't think they are worthy of consideration until why those etralinguistic arguments are relevant to PIE etymology.






> The reason I refer to the calendar of the celts is because it is ATTESTED!
> And allow me to refer to Weekley, Ernest, *An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English:*
> 
> "The fact that the Aryans have a common name for night, but not for day (q.v.), is due to the fact that they reckoned by nights."
> 
> Exactly as I speculated, and with that fact settled, let me then settle the second: The fact that the word “nacht” (and any of it’s European “brothers”) can be described as a “first level” compound of words close to the sound and meaning of the modern german “nach” and “acht”, can’t possibly be too controversial in the corridors of etymology.
> 
> Let me point to the fact that “Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog” (1966), actually goes even further suggesting that the root for the word “Nach” *nehw- derives from a compound of *PIE reconstructions *an and *ok.
> 
> Call the above etymologies “semantic meaningless” if you feel like, but they are etymology just the same, That's a FACT!


I suspect a researcher of philosophy of science isn't easily convinced to call an argument fact.  Your quote of Ernest Weekly explains why the word "night" in many Indo-European languages can be traced back to the PIE vocabulary, but he did not argue that the word is a compound.  Do you have any linguistic argument as to why the word needs to be broken into two (or more) morphemes?

Look, in this thread we have two stances regarding this night-eight arguments.  1. Most PIE researchers think that the PIE roots *nekw-t- (> Eg. night; w is suprascripted to k) and *oktō (> Eg. eight) are similar just by chance.  In order words they don't believe that the former was created by adding n- or some other prefix to the latter.  Note that that something happened by coincidence is the most simple explanations of all; null hypothesis.

2. Against the above explanation, you (and perhaps this _Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog_) seem to be arguing that "night" was originally "on eight" based on the Celtic system of reckoning the time of the day.  It may be that you explained other reasons in your last post but this is the only one I understood.  Please enlighten my ignorance if you had more reasons.

Continuing the philosophical discussion of this thread, I'd like to examine the two theories in terms of falsifiability and simplicity.  In order to prove that the mainstream PIE theory is wrong, one needs to prove that there is a better reconstruction than *nekw-t-.  I personally don't like to do so without proper qualification, but theoretically it is possible that one day someone finds a very old writing that suggests a better reconstruction such as *pnek.  This, however, does not concern us because this way of falsification altogether falsifies your take of the phenomenon.  I think we must be contended with the fact that this single-morpheme theory can be falsified by your multi-morpheme theory.  In fact they are falsifications to each other.  Once we admit the reconstruction *nekw-t-, that it is a single morpheme is the null hypothesis, thus the most simple one regarding the night-eight problem.

Your theory, on the contrary, is less simple in that we need to postulate two, instead of one, morphemes and that they happened to derive a new meaning.  As the support for this derivation, you cited the Celtic calendar.  In order to falsify your theory, therefore, one has to prove either that you have a misunderstanding about the calendar or that the calendar has nothing to do with etymology.  [In fact, you have implicitly taken on your shoulder the onus probandi that it is not irrelevant by bringing an extralinguistic argument into a language discussion.]

Do you realise that the reconstruction cited is about a theoretical form at least 5000 years ago?

Do you realise that the existance of the Celtic calendar does not guarrantee that the time of the day was noted just the same by the PIE speakers?

Even if, let's suppose so for the sheer sake of argument, the night started from the eighth hour for the PIE speakers, do you realise that there are many other possible reasons that the word "night" would have a relationship with "eight"?

I wrote down these questions as the indication of the falsifiability of your theory but I can use them for falsification itself.






>





> You are wrong, sir: I simply question two assumptions:
> 1. That the postulate “All Indo-European languages derive from one PIE language (or continuum)” should be seen as a fact, rather than as one certain method (a functional idealism) among other possible methods.
> 
> 2. That PIE-reconstructions can constitute a “true” or “full” etymology and explanation for European words.


Similarities between Indo-European languages are so systematic that one cannot dismiss them as chance coincidence.  Perhaps this is not what you want to do.  To my mind postulating genetic relationship between IE languages that go back to the ancestral PIE is the second simplest explanation after the null hypothesis (chance coincidence theory).  If you have either a simpler or a more consistent theory, I am all ears!

I am not sure if I understand what "'true' or 'full' etymology and explanation" may mean, but linguists are aware that not all words in European languages are derived from PIE.  There are loans; very old ones are attested in most IE languages but some researchers argue that they are from neighbouring languages such as Finno-Ugorian and Semitic.  If you open a specific-language dictionary such as OED, you will find a lot of words with unknown origin or those whose etymology cannot go back any further than the group ancestor (e.g., Proto-Germanic for English).


----------



## Silly Barry

Addressing Hulalessor:

I agree to much of your general considerations concerning methodology of historic linguistics. You are truly a wise mand. But allow me to have some comments. The concept “word” is indeed slippery, and the reason for this is exactly that the concept is determined simply by the conventions of writing, and therefore the concept “word” is a child of these same conventions. We may agree to that. - So far so good. But we will have to consider the consequence: Any “feeling” that a single syllable can not be denoting more than single word (at a time) is from now on logically unsubstantiated in perfect accordance with our agreement ;-).

The reason for this is of course that this feeling too, can be shown to be a product of our conventions. This is not just theory. How morphemes and clitics correspond to logical ideas signaled with symbols in any other way than writing, is not very clear. According to research in semiosis, there is reason to believe that there may exists such thing as metasign systems, and that writing is just one out of many “codes of communicating meaning”. Concerning the correspondences you refer to, also the description of such can be understood as children of our aforementioned conventions. In that sense what correspondences really correspond too is our own convention. "Obvious" correspondences, such as the - by you mentioned - H to C, has been demonstrated very early in the history of linguistics. What I’m still waiting for is the logic explanation as to why it has to happen that way.

You suggest that the compounds I refered to may be latent or obscured compounds, and you find it important that we distinguish between such latent compounds, which is the result of normal and unconscious language change, and acronyms defined as deliberate creations “arising only because the language in which they are formed is written down”.

I’m sceptical, for several reasons ;-)

First it does not seem clear in what category we would put compounds of abbreviated words that - though they could have been constructed before true alphabetic writing flourished - would have been defined and determined by the very logic of prehistoric language. We would have to invent a third category for such compounds. That is why I used the phrase “compound of abbreviations”, as they are all surely compounds or abbreviations, no matter the sub-category, and further discussion could be avoided on that subject.

Let me give an example: In what category should we put the word _alphabet _– and why?

We see clearly the logic behind the Greek “alpha,-beta” etymology, so why not select the obvious, as it fits perfectly to our conventions. But if we forget about the Greek etymology for a second: How would we know that the word alphabet is not originally a compound of - allow me to use the word: “ideas”?

Let me functionally try to build such a case,: Postulate 1: There existed an early logical language system which was syllabary such as the later linear B. Postulate 2: The word “alphabet” is a compound of ideas with the possible meaning “all feet/all letters/all colours”, (and of course: “the almighty fathers”). ;-)

Putting the syllabary glasses on, we start with “historic linguistics” as method: Such mentioned "ideas" can be traced back through old Germanic: allr-“Fe-hU-eTH”-r, pronounced “allera föhweth-r”. It actually makes perfectly sense if one takes seriously the syllabary logic: The “not to be spelled” great universal initiator ale(ph) is the almighty “allr” initiating exactly _the first three letters_ of Futhark, spelled out in syllables initially in the default block of 6, but shortened to 3 the semitic way: 

Allow me to introduce: al(r)FaVeTH – The old Germanic “word” for FUTHark!

Voila! J

Please notice that Fe-hU-THa is not only the sound of the first three letters of FUTHARK, - it is also the _full name_ of the very first letter itself, reconstructed to *fehu-.
The “-ath”-ending is the inherent neutral ending, as is the ED in bleed, originally making it forbidden to say “one blood” –only the phrases “some blood” (etc.) is allowed. 

Postulate 3: The letters O and D (oTHILa DAGATH) is the last letters of Elder Futhark, with the meaning in Scandinavian: “indtil dages (ende) = “ende” is not to be "spelled", exactly as mirrored to “allr”. The meaning in short: Until Death! - or as an empty tack: Out. 

Let me sum up: We can now conclude (correct me if you think I'm wrong here) that it is possible - given the syllabary logic - to show that in Elder Futhark the letter F (attested) is an abbreviation of the first three letters Fe-hU-TH (attested) which are in themselves a possible abbreviation meaning “all letters in the alphabet”. The meaning is accordingly carried from the whole object of “each and every letter of the alphabet”, to the shortest possible abbreviation: the letter F logically defined and pronounced “(allr)-fäueth(r)-(ende)”. Compare with modern Scandinavian phrases: “alle födderne” (all feet) and “alle fädrene”. (all the fathers)

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not a “phantast” or some religious fanatic, a conspiracy maker or anything like it. I don’t wish to see the above syllabary logic deconstruction as necessarily the “new truth”. Rather, I am a scepticist and would like to see it discussed from a critical point of view. Only thing is that in my opinion, this "syllabary deconstruction logic" simply explains, much of the logic and syntacs beneath my own language, in a far more precise way than PIE-theory and *reconstructions does, and to me it seems that there are such overwhelming amount of clear traces of syllabary logic attested in scandinavian languages. It jumps right up in your nose as soon as you accept the logic. 

But what I’m considering here, has already been done over a century ago, would you say? I’m afraid this is really not so. In fact, I believe it has never even been touched. In my opinion what has been done is rather shutting the good eye closed. It makes me wonder.

You brought me the link to etymonline, and insisted that it does not take much to show that my proposed etymology of German _nacht_, is wrong? Could you be more clear?

English words like near, neck, next and especially the anglian “nigh”, seem to follow much the same logic as the German nach. (probably going back to some *nah-thing, - see etymonline on “nigh”) The reconstructed root should be *Nehw-, which seems to lead to the old scandinavian word “närved” which is an old compound of words "när" and "ved". As in the old Danish "ordsprog":

“Närved og nästen, slår ingen mand af hästen” (gammelt dansk ordsprog).

Etymonline are probably wrong about one thing: It is claimed that the original word for neck was "hals", but this claim I believe has no justification. Hals and nakke are both old germanic words which in modern scandinavian language has two slightly different meanings. Hals means "narrowing" (alright) and "throat", but seemingly without the "end" and "backside" meaning as nakke has (nakke actually means: back of the neck). 

Well,


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> Only thing is that in my opinion, this "syllabary deconstruction logic" simply explains, much of the logic and syntacs beneath my own language,...


It has no explanatory power (taking for a moment Poppers definition of _explanatory power_ as being identical to _testability_ and _falsifiability_) what so ever as long as it based on random associations based on random samples from random languages. The examples you have given so far are all based on ad hoc arguments and not on systematic laws. 

I am not saying that this syllable decomposition theory cannot be useful is certain context. We know that some modern Germanic languages still create acronyms this way, e.g. the notorious German acronyms _Gespapo (*ge*heime *Sta*ats*po*lizei)_ and _Stasi (*Sta*ats*si*cherheit)_. But not the way your examples were constructed.

Contrary what you seem to believe, arguments in historical linguistics are bases on systematic, law like and therefore testable (in a Popperian sense) theories.


----------



## Frank06

I wrote:


> Wow, hold it. You started with modern German words, now you're continuing with speculations on Celtic calendars...”





 Silly Barry said:


> Gentlemen, you are apparently not very well informed, so let me help you out. First: I’m not doing any teleporting. The reason I refer to the calendar of the celts is because it is ATTESTED! And allow me to refer to Weekley, Ernest, An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English:
> "The fact that the Aryans have a common name for night, but not for day (q.v.), is due to the fact that they reckoned by nights."


In no way does quote from Weekley substantiate your _linguistic_ claims which I quote here in full:


> There are reasons to believe that in celtic calendar among others, daily time-line started after sun setting. *The eighth hour (the edge hour) would accordingly have been near the 10 o'clock position (or the direction of the sun setting on the longest day), and would most probably have been symbolized by the letter X.*
> *In antique greek X was known as "chi", perhaps cognate with old northern "tio", danish "ti" and dutch "tien". *
> For Elder Futhark the name of the letter X has been reconstructed to "*gebo", but it is also quite possible logically and linguistically to interpret the X as a compound of syllabary letters turned into a consonant cluster, with original pronounciations close to eich-che, eith-ge, eith-ye, or ed-je, derived from names of signs possibly cognate with phoenician letters Teth (9. letter of phoenician alphabet) and Yod (10. letter of many semitic abjads).


What the quote from Weekley and your “explanation” have in common, is the word “night”. And that’s it. 
From Weekley’s quote doesn’t follow the “linguistic explanation” above, nor can the quote add anything to your "explanation", which involves Germanic words, Celtic calendars, Greek and Phoenician _letters__ and a lot of fancy reasoning which comes closer to pareidolia than to a sound linguistic explanation. _



> Exactly as I speculated, and with that fact settled,


Yes, you speculated, no you settled nothing at all, no matter how many books you quote on Celtic calendars, they don’t settle the linguistic issue. I hope you spot the difference.



> let me then settle the second: The fact that the word “nacht” (and any of it’s European “brothers”) can be described as a “first level” compound of words close to the sound and meaning of the modern german “nach” and “acht”, can’t possibly be too controversial in the corridors of etymology.


This is fantasy.



> Let me point to the fact that “Dansk Etymologisk Ordbog” (1966), actually goes even further suggesting that the root for the word “Nach” *nehw- derives from a compound of *PIE reconstructions *an and *ok.
> Call the above etymologies “semantic meaningless” if you feel like, but they are etymology just the same, That's a FACT!


It’s funny how you cherry-pick from the ‘mainstream’ sources, which you’re so opposed to. 

Which brings us back to our first posts: what are your objections against the current mainstream PIE theory, and what makes you decide to cherry-pick from them. Can you please give us a list of your objections. 



> Apart from that I question as to what degree PIE-theory, could possibly claim to be a "functional" theory.
> By _functional_ I mean
> A. Which can be valued _functionally_.
> B. Which brings _functional_ explanations (such as describing cause/effect).


So, from the quote above it becomes clear that by ‘functional’ you mean ‘functional’. Can you please be a bit _more_ clear and explain us what exactly you mean by “functional”?



> Yes, you understand it correctly. The eighth (outgoing) daytime hour would be going between 8 o’clock position towards the 10 o’clock position (approximately the point of the sun setting at the longest day in north europe), therefore X as “eth-CHI”, would be used to describe the late hour as it passed the X, just before the new time reckoning, where as “eighth” (outgoing) would be used for the hour until the hinge (H) of the X, which is the loop hole “-“ in ed-je, after which the sun will never cast its shadow.


What is this supposed to mean?

I wrote:


> But I have got a speculation of my own: you used Popper and your "critique" on PIE in the beginning of this thread only as an an excuse, a pretext to launch your own ideosyncratic "linguistic" theory."






			
				Sily Barry said:
			
		

> Nah, this is not fair! I was not here to launch anything,


You're right, using the word "theory", which presupposes some consistency and methodology, was very unfair. You're just making "connections between" a pile of cherry-picked data.


----------



## Silly Barry

Addressing Berndf: 

I'm very sorry for the technical mesh, my pc went on freeze, after editing.



> It has no explanatory power (taking for a moment Poppers definition of _explanatory power_ as being identical to _testability_ and _falsifiability_) what so ever as long as it based on random associations based on random samples from random languages.


 
 



> The examples you have given so far are all based on ad hoc arguments and not on systematic laws....()...Contrary what you seem to believe, arguments in historical linguistics are bases on systematic, law like and therefore testable (in a Popperian sense) theories.


 
Yes, Berndf, it's about time. Let's now make it more *TESTABLE*, with systematic laws:

I therefore introduce Silly Barry's first law for the syllabary abbreviation compound deconstructional theory for (initially) Scandinavian languages:

Silly Barry's "law of essence": 

Postulate: For true historic Scandinavian (Old-Germanic) words starting with the consonant S followed immediately by another consonant, the S is a functional syllabary "essence" abbreviation meaning "vären Sig väre" in short: "Sig (väre)", shortly in english: "itself being".

Rough examples:
Snart = being near
Skrive = being "crier" 
Skyld = being geld
Svedig = being weet
Smuk = being mjuk (soft)
Slöjfe = being loopy
Snyde = being nice (bad)
Smelte = being melted
Slukke = being locked
Sluse = being locked
Smerte = being "martre"
Spröd = being bread, breakable
Stejle = being taller
Straffe = being træffet (the hit)
Styre = being directing
Snue = being noosy


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> Postulate: For true historic scandinavian (old-germanic) words starting with the consonant S followed immediately by another consonant, the S is a functional syllabary "essence" abbreviation meaning "vären Sig väre" in short: "Sig (väre)", shortly in english: "itself being".
> 
> Rough examples:
> ...
> Styre = being directing
> ...


Can you explain what you mean? I know the Old Norse verb _styra = to direct_,_ to steer_. How does this connect with what you write?


----------



## Silly Barry

Berndf said:


> Can you explain what you mean? I know the Old Norse verb _styra = to direct_,_ to steer_. How does this connect with what you write?


 
The meaning (function) of S can seemingly be isolated, in such Scandinavian words (oldgermanic words). As in: 
Styre = S-tyre = Se dire

Svedig/to sweat = being wet, (not being "weet", as I wrote, sorry)

The "being" is short for "being oneself being...." "Vären sig väre"


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> The meaning (function) of S can seemingly be isolated, in such Scandinavian words (oldgermanic words). As in:
> Styre = S-tyre = Se dire


Then you would have do demonstrate that "tyra"/"tyre" has an independent root in Old Norse. What would this be? And what has "se dire" to do with this all? Are you speaking of Modern French? How could this ever by an etymological explanation of Old Norse?


----------



## Silly Barry

> Then you would have do demonstrate that "tyre" has an independent root in Old Norse.


 
;-)
Not Old Norse - rather bronze-age- or pre-germanic". I just initially prepared the law for the Scandinavian languages.

If during bronze age, one could only say "se dire" in pre-germanic, according to certain grammatical roules (genitive), the "he/she/it dire" without the "sich" would not be allowed in early Germanic. Therefore it can be argued that the original "dire" would be pre-germanic or at least very early "bronze-age germanic" (according to one's own conventions), and would have been forgotten in some or all later germanic languages.


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> Therefore it can be argued that the original "dire" would be pre-germanic or at least very early "bronze-age germanic" (according to one's own conventions), and would have been forgotten in some or all later germanic languages.


Absolutely not. You cannot assume the existence of a root "dire" because your theory would require in order to test your theory.

On the contrary, if you wanted to test your theory you would have to demonstrate that the roots predicted by your theory can be shown to have existed using methods independent of your theory.

By the way: the reconstructed Proto-Germanic verb is _*steurian_. The Old Norse "y" is usually not derived from an Proto-Germanic "i". That would be very untypical.


----------



## Frank06

I get the impression that you're making things up while writing your posts, as a kind of ironic comment on PIE theory. I even start to wonder whether or not it's already April 1 on your Celtic calendar.

Nevertheless, a few comments:


Silly Barry said:


> bronze-age- or pre-germanic [...] the Scandinavian languages


There aren't many real linguists who dare to say anything about pre-Germanic (non-IE) languages, but you managed to tap into the Pre-Germanic language(s) spoken in (S?)kandinavia. I am impressed.



> If during bronze age, one could only say "se dire" in pre-germanic, according to certain grammatical roules (genitive), the "he/she/it dire" without the "sich" would not be allowed in early Germanic.


Not only did you start to dig up the pre-Germanic nuggets you also have found out that they have a _genitive_, which, and this is truly bizarre, looks an awful lot like a _reflexive pronoun_.
I really have no clue whether or not there is a relation between a reflexive pronoun and the genitive, but it's amazing that you managed to postulate this for your pre-Germanic tongue solely on the basis of your ad-hoc reasoning.



> Therefore it can be argued that the original "dire" would be pre-germanic or at least very early "bronze-age germanic"


And you even come up with "original" roots! However, if I were you I'd start deciding whether it's pre-Germanic (i.e. non-Germanic) or "Bronze Age Germanic" (i.e. Germanic). You're betting on two horses here.
Otherwise, in case I misunderstood, you'll have to explain what pre-Germanic and so-called Bronze Age Germanic languages are and what their relation is with the traditional Germanic languages, with PIE and the IE family. You'll also have to say a bit more about Proto-Germanic, your usage of "the Sandinavian languages" and the relation between these tongues and other Germanic languages. 
So far your "explanations" require more questions than they provide answers.



> (according to one's own conventions)


Now, this is a bit of a mistake. As a philosopher of the sciences, you must know that "according to one's own conventions" is _the_ hallmark of pseudoscience. 
By the way, as a philosopher, you should also be aware that your hypothesis wouldn't stand a shaving by Occham, which I hope you understand by now: you're just throwing in new terms in your hypothesis (pre-Germanic, Bronze Age Germanic) without explaining them...



> and would have been forgotten in some or all later germanic languages.


"Some or all" . Now, that's precise! (I almost wrote 'That's a _razor sharp_ statement!', but for reasons stated above, I can't really use this expression). 



Silly Barry said:


> Rough examples


Verrrry rough examples ). The linguistic equivalent of pyrite nuggets.

Frank


----------



## Silly Barry

Berndf said:


> By the way: the reconstructed Proto-Germanic verb is _*steurian_. The Old Norse "y" is usually not derived from an Proto-Germanic "i". That would be very untypical.


 
Pardon me. Thats is true, and the root is of course early Germanic TR = "teuer" or "teur", originally meaning "to raise", and later "to be strong/to strengthen" (Dari - taurus - turret - tower - tooth, etc). It was the T-rune reconstructed as *Teiwaz, and name for the wargod Tyr, as in "tuesday". 

Today we find it in the German word "teuer" for "high price" and in Scandinavian language "töjle" (to control) og "töjler" (horse reins), "töj" (tool), "fortöje" (to moor), and also "tyr" (bull), "tyre" (Slang? = to kick hard), "turde/tör" (to dare/I dare), tuna (strong town, as in Sigtuna, Tönder, Tongeren), "stærk" (strong), "stor" (great, large), stejle (to steep) and "støje" (make noise).

I would agree that there is no connection to Italic/Latin "direct", or such would be purely phonosemantic. Rather there seem to be similarity to Latin "taurus" and maybe even: "_tutorem"_ (nom. _tutor_) "guardian, watcher," from _tutus_, variant pp. of _tueri_ "watch over,".

According to "Dansk etymologisk ordbog" "Tyr" (bull) comes from Germanic *theura, and the dictionary suggest connection to IE *teuro-s (with isolated s), developing to "taurus", coming from germanic *steura. Nothing seem to argue against my proposal that the S was originally a function of _reflexive pronoun._

Frank said:


> There aren't many real linguists who dare to say anything about pre-Germanic (non-IE) languages, but you managed to tap into the Pre-Germanic language(s) spoken in (S?)kandinavia. I am impressed.


 
No Sir, let me explain my thougts: I assume Scandinavian languages are closer in certain aspects to old germanic than other germanic languages. My argument is that Scandinavia was never "francisized" as were the Germans, or "normannersized" as the British. Scandinavia was never "taking over" by foreign speakers as far as we know.

A typical result of such altering of Germanic language is the soft G, altered to hard G in Germany, and to Y in england. In Danmark it became hard for word-initial positions only (a germanisation), but in sweden it still exist fully soft as in "Götaland" [yotalant]. 

Exactly where Old Germanic, or Pre-Germanic were actually spoken is a another discussion.

Frank said:


> Not only did you start to dig up the pre-Germanic nuggets you also have found out that they have a _genitive_, which, and this is truly bizarre, looks an awful lot like a _reflexive pronoun_


.

Thank you very much. That was exactly the word I was looking for. Not "genitive".
The german word "Sich" is a _reflexive pronoun. _Thanx.

Frank said:





> And you even come up with "original" roots! However, if I were you I'd start deciding whether it's pre-Germanic (i.e. non-Germanic) or "Bronze Age Germanic" (i.e. Germanic). You're betting on two horses here.
> Otherwise, in case I misunderstood, you'll have to explain what pre-Germanic and so-called Bronze Age Germanic languages are and what their relation is with the traditional Germanic languages, with PIE and the IE family. You'll also have to say a bit more about Proto-Germanic, your usage of "the Sandinavian languages" and the relation between these tongues and other Germanic languages.


 
Bronzeage Germanic I guess, is attested in line 1 and 3 on the "Duenos"-inscription. 
Pre-Germanic must be some time before that. ;-)

What exactly defines Pre-Germanic will be a matter of conventions.

Frank said:





> Now, this is a bit of a mistake. As a philosopher of the sciences, you must know that "according to one's own conventions" is _the_ hallmark of pseudoscience.


 
The expression "according to one's own conventions" is simply refering to the generel fact that what defines a term is a matter of conventions. It has nothing to do with pseudoscience. Okay. Let me give you conventions:

According to british conventions what I drink right now is "beer". According to spanish conventions it is not "beer", it is "cerveza".

According to the ostensive definition the colour Magenta is a "red" colour. According to CMYK colour convention Magenta is a base colour and therefore not "red" (as "red" is a mixed colour).

The line between fact and fiction (reader contract)....the difference between good and bad..."worlds first flight", "the right decision", science, truth, words.......

.....the proposition "this ruler is 30cm long" which was "true" yesterday, but is "false" today because we have narrowed our criterias.

All is a matter of conventions. So what constitutes Pre-Germanic for you is a function of what conventions you hold. That is what I wanted to say


----------



## Frank06

Silly Barry said:


> No Sir, let me explain my thougts: I assume Scandinavian languages are closer in certain aspects to Old Germanic than other Germanic languages.


Of course your language has a special status, but the above can be said of other Germanic language too: in some respects German is quite conservative (cases), in other respects not (High German consonant shift).


> Bronze Age Germanic I guess, is attested in line 1 and 3 on the "Duenos"-inscription. Pre-Germanic must be some time before that. ;-)


You're not answering the question. Apart from that, there's also the detail that the Duenos inscription is strongly believed to be completely in Old Latin. So Bronze Age Germanic is Old Latin??
Anyway, in an attempt to bring this thread back to PIE, we'd like to know what the relation is between your Pre-Germanic, (Proto-)Germanic(?) and *PIE*. Furthermore, you don't seem to have a problem with reconstructed Germanic words, but with reconstructed PIE. How come? 
It's also weird that you consider a quite common textbook as "obscure", but yet don't hesitate to use a Danish etymological dictionary. This selectiveness is becoming quite, erm, silly.



> What exactly defines Pre-Germanic will be a matter of conventions.


Yes, you already said that. So, how would you define Pre-Germanic? And again, what's the relation between Pre-Germanic and reconstructed PIE, which you dismissed (and now seem to accept when it is "useful" for your explanation). In a discussion about methodology, this is slightly bothering.


> The expression "according to one's own conventions" is simply refering to the *generel fact*


Which contradicts with "one's own", and that was my problem.
When discussing linguistics, it's quite obvious that one uses the commonly accepted terminology. If you want to come up with your own terms, as "Old Germanic", "Old Northern" (aka Old Norse?) then you have to clearly define them. If you'd use a commonly accepted term in a completely different way, then you have to point this out. You're unwillingness to do so, despite previous requests, makes me think that you're playing games here worthy of your nick.

[off topic 'conventions' and other, erm, stuff which reminds me of above mentioned taurus snipped]



> So what constitutes Pre-Germanic for you is a function of what conventions you hold. That is what I wanted to say


So, you have no clue. Thank you.

I'd also like to ask you to re-read this thread and start replying to all the questions which you ignored and hence left unaswered, concentrating upon PIE, and its relation with your idea of "Germanic", and the methodology. 
I start to get the impression that every time you are asked critical questions, you cherry pick a few questions, ignore the rest and then simply add new data to the discussion. We all know that adding a lot of so-called new data (for example your list with s) takes less time to compile and post (I guess 10 minutes) than to research them and reply to it. Also your usage of ideosyncratic, ill-defined and very vague terms don't add anything to this discussion.

I hope we can expect a bit less disingenuousness from you in the rest of this debate.

Frank


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> Anyway, in an attempt to bring this thread back to PIE, we'd like to know what the relation is between your Pre-Germanic, (Proto-)Germanic(?) and *PIE*.


I think he means "Proto-Germanic" when he writes "Pre-Germanic".


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



berndf said:


> I think he means "Proto-Germanic" when he writes "Pre-Germanic".


It's sad indeed that after 4 pages we still have to guess. 

If he'd use Pre-Germanic as Proto... wait wait... proto here means "reconstructed", and he doesn't like reconstructions. So *Proto*-Germanic would be invalid and impossible or at least illogical and inconsequent from his point of view. It's weird to use Pre-Germanic (hence non-Germanic) to denote... Germanic. If he doesn't like the Proto part, he could use the widely accepted, though slightly out of date term Common Germanic (but this is a synonym for Proto-Germanic). What a mess...

I understand Pre-Germanic as either Proto-Indo-European or some kind of phase between PIE and Proto-Germanic, whatever that could be.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

Silly Barry said:


> The meaning (function) of S can seemingly be isolated, in such Scandinavian words (oldgermanic words). As in:
> Styre = S-tyre = Se dire
> 
> Svedig/to sweat = being wet, (not being "weet", as I wrote, sorry)
> 
> The "being" is short for "being oneself being...." "Vären sig väre"


I think you still owe us an explanation by which method one might substantiate such a claim? (And do you really mean Modern French by "Se dire" or do I misunderstand you?)

If not this example then maybe another?


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> So *Proto*-Germanic would be invalid and impossible or at least illogical and inconsequent from his point of view.


Well, it is not quite illogical. It is a perfectly valid position, from a logical point of view, claiming that there is a common Germanic ancestor language which is (in some parts) reconstructable but at the same time denying that this is possible at the earlier PIE or that such a common even ancestor exists, for that matter.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



berndf said:


> Well, it is not quite illogical. It is a perfectly valid position, from a logical point of view, claiming that there is a common Germanic ancestor language which is (in some parts) reconstructable but at the same time denying that this is possible at the earlier PIE or that such a common even ancestor exists, for that matter.


Okay, but the methods used to reconstruct Proto-Germanic are quite similar to those used to reconstructed PIE.
Also the reasons to hypothesise a common ancestor for the Germanic languages are quite similar to the reasons to think of a common ancestor for what we now call the IE languages.
Furthermore, we have a vast body of texts, written in old (mind the small letter) Germanic languages (Gothic, Old English, Old High German, etc.) on which we can base ourselves.
We also have a vast body of old (again, mind the small letter) IE texts (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, etc.) on which we can base ourselves to reconstruct PIE.

Keeping all this in mind, I find it difficult, and yes, even illogical, to say Proto-Germanic: yes, Proto-Indo-European: no.

Groetjes,

Frank

PS: I do know Bernd's position on PIE and PGm _very_ well. I do know that he doesn't dismiss either PIE or PGm.


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> Keeping all this in mind, I find it difficult, and yes, even illogical, to say Proto-Germanic: yes, Proto-Indo-European: no.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank
> 
> PS: I do know Bernd's position on PIE and PGm _very_ well. I do know that he doesn't dismiss either PIE or PGm.


AS we are talking epistimology in this thread I just wanted to by very strict in distinguishing between alnalytically false, i.e. illogical, and contingently, i.e. factually, false. E.g. the statement "New York in in Africa" is (contingently) false but not illogical.

Of course, you are right, I am not talking about my own position.


----------

