The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: FlatAssembler on May 18, 2017, 11:22:59 PM

Title: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 18, 2017, 11:22:59 PM
(I will try to explain my ideas without presupposing that a reader has a lot of knowledge of the Indo-European linguistics, regardless of how long it would take to explain them.)
As anyone who is even remotely familiar with Indo-European linguistics knows, its relatively easy to reconstruct the consonants in the proto-language. The same, however, isnt even remotely true for the vowels. To understand the problem, consider this: lets try to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European word for three. I happen to know its pronunciation in three distantly related Indo-European languages: Latin tres, English three and Serbo-Croatian tri. The first phoneme was quite obviously *t, English th is easily explainable via the Grimms law. The same goes for the second phoneme, it was *r. Now, the third phoneme is a bit trickier, but nevertheless remains deducible. Latin word suggests the phoneme *e, and English i sound is a result of the Great Vowel Shift, therefore it also suggests an original *e sound. However, Serbo-Croatian clearly suggests there to have been an *i sound. There is no rule that would make an e sound in other Indo-European languages correspond to an i sound in Serbo-Croatian, Serbo-Croatian words for six and seven are est and sedam, not **ist and **sidam. However, here is a clue, the Ancient Greek word is treys. Now it makes sense. It was a diphthong! Loss of the final s in Croatian is easily explainable, in Proto-Slavic there was a so-called Open Syllable Law, and no syllable could end in a consonant. Syllable-final consonants either became initial (the liquid consonants r and l) or were elided. Thats why no native Serbo-Croatian word ends with an s. The English word can probably be explained in a similar manner, so that the original Proto-Indo-European word was *treys. Can we reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European word for two? Well, not that easily. So, the English word is two, the Latin word is duo and the Serbo-Croatian word is dva. So, the first phoneme was *d. English t can be explained as a simple application of the Grimms law. The second phoneme was *w. Serbo-Croatian v and Latin u are both its allophones. But lets try to deduce what the third phoneme was. The English u sound comes from, via the Great Vowel Shift, from the *o sound. Latin also points to the original *o sound. So does the Ancient Greek. But how to explain the Serbo-Croatian a sound? Its not like Latin o corresponds to Serbo-Croatian a,  Latin word for eight is octo, and Serbo-Croatian word for eight is osam and not **asam. Its as if there had originally been two words for two: *dwo and *dwa. Most of the linguists agree with that notion, and believe that change of the vowels, called ablaut, was the main way to derive new words in Proto-Indo-European. Its traces are visible in modern Indo-European languages. For instance, many English irregular verbs have their forms formed by change of the vowel, for instance: sing-sang-sung. There are languages today that have this feature as the main way to derive new words, for instance, the Semitic languages (that are not Indo-European, and are probably not related to Indo-European languages at all). However, there would appear to have had been many types of ablaut in Proto-Indo-European, way more than in those languages. So, its been hypothesized that there had been some phonemes in Proto-Indo-European that colored the vowels (much like the r colors them in modern English, a is pronounced significantly differently in fat than in far). So, the hypothesized phoneme that colored e to a, but did nothing to other vowels is noted as *h2. So, the Proto-Indo-European word for two is then reconstructed as *dwoh2. So, only one type of ablaut is hypothesized to exist, the alternation between o, e and no vowel. If an ablaut occurs that turns *dwoh2 into *dweh2, the word would, in modern languages, be rendered as if it had been pronounced *dwa. This bears a lot of explanatory power. But how were those sounds pronounced? Most of the linguists believe they were h-like sounds, and the theory about them is called the Laryngeal Theory. This is where I dont agree with the mainstream linguistics any more. I think that those sounds were, in fact, semi-vowels (sounds like the consonantal y and w). I believe that, for instance, the often reconstructed cluster *eh2 was, in fact, a diphtong, usually pronounced like i in ride. To understand why, consider this example: the Proto-Indo-European word for mother is reconstructed as *meh2ter. The Latin word was pronounced mater, the Greek word was pronounced meter, and the Sanskrit word was pronounced mitar. The a in the Latin word mater  is explainable the same way the e can be explained in tres, the same goes for the Sanskrit mitar, and the Greek word is explained via the analog monothongization as ae (pronounced like i in ride) in Classical Latin turned to e in the Romance Languages. Or consider the Indo-European word for beech, *bheh2gjos. The Latin word from it is fagus (bh turns to f in Latin), the English word from it is book (Old Germanic people used to write on the beech wood, beech comes from umlaut of book + the ending e that caused the palatalization), and the Serbo-Croatian word is bukva. The simple truth is, by regular sound changes, the English word would be **bak (Grimms law) and the Serbo-Croatian word would be **boz (satemization, *eh2 almost always turns to o in Serbo-Croatian). But lets suppose *eh2 was here pronounced like ow in bow. So, that the Proto-Indo-European word for beech was *bhaugos. The mystery solved! au easily turns both to a, to u and to o (as it did in Late Latin). There are reasons to think that h2e gave ay in Illirian. Namely, its said by Pseudo-Scylax that Aenona (the ancient name for the Croatian city of Nin) comes from the Illyrian word for rocks, Aemonoi. Thats almost certainly from *h2ekjmon (like English hammer). Now, lets analyze the arguments purported for the Laryngeal Theory. Ill ignore the arguments from the purported loanwords, or, even worse, cognates to Indo-European from Proto-Semitic, because they are almost always based on a single phoneme in the supposedly related words. The strongest argument put forward is that the Hittite word for in front of (like Latin ante) has been transliterated as hanti. Now, Hittite was written in a syllabic script. So, how do we know that the first glyph represented ha? Because of the Hittite transcriptions of the Akkadian words. Now, in my dialect of Serbo-Croatian, there are no h-like sounds. And, in the loanwords, the h-sound gets replaced by a semivowel (either y or w). I see no reason to think that Hittite was any different.
I am not a linguist, but I think I know enough linguistics to make some conclusions by myself. If I am not right, then I am just wrong, not, as some say, not even wrong.
I would like to discuss my theories with other free-thinkers. If you think you can redirect me on some more suitable forum for such things, please do that.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Twerp on May 18, 2017, 11:55:33 PM
Seems reasonable.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 19, 2017, 12:06:57 AM
I have 3 objections against your ideas:

1. The diphthongs w and y are reconstructed for the Proto Indoeuropean language. Why do they behave and develop differently than the diphthongs you substitute for the traditionally supposed so called "laryngeals"?

2.We need 3 laryngeals to explain Indoeuropean vocalism. So you also need 3 different semi-vowels instead of two.

3.As you mentioned, Hittite preserved at least one "laryngeal" (actually thought to be a guttural fricative), as does the closely related Luwian, at lest in some positions, and it occurs in many words and names. We are quite sure that it was really a guttural fricative, as testified not only by Akkadian, Hurrian, Ugaritic and Egyptian loanwords and names in the Anatolian languages, but also by the presentation of Anatolian words and names in Akkadian, Hurrian, Ugaritic and Egyptian. The latter at least directly disproves your proposal.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 19, 2017, 04:40:31 AM
Quote
The diphthongs w and y are reconstructed for the Proto Indoeuropean language. Why do they behave and develop differently than the diphthongs you substitute for the traditionally supposed so called "laryngeals"?
The diphthong *ay isn't reconstructed for the PIE, neither is the vowel *a (except in, you know, *way, *stawros, and similar words which are said not to be in line with the PIE phonotactics). You are probably thinking of the word *ayes, for bronze. In the laryngeal theory, it's, in fact, reconstructed to have been earlier pronounced *h2eyes.
Quote
We need 3 laryngeals to explain Indoeuropean vacalism. So you also need 3 different semi-vowels instead of two.
Not at all. *h1 was reconstructed not to color vowels at all, it was reconstructed just based on the assumption that a PIE root couldn't end or start with a vowel. Plus some inconsistent evidence in form of the initial h-es in Albanian (which is most easily explained as an areal feature, since unexpected initial h-es are also present in many words in Ancient Greek).
Quote
As you mentioned, Hittite preserved at least one "laryngeal" (actually thought to be a guttural fricative), as does the closely related Luwian, at lest in some positions, and it occurs in many words and names. We are quite sure that it was really a guttural fricative, as testified not only by Akkadian, Hurrian, Ugaritic and Egyptian loanwords and names in the Anatolian languages, but also by the presentation of Anatolian words and names in Akkadian, Hurrian, Ugaritic and Egyptian. The latter at least directly disproves your proposal.
Now, the name Hittite occurs in many ancient languages. However, it doesn't come from the Hittite language. Hittites called themselves Neshili. So, this is much like the names Hungary or Finland are today.
Also, the cuneiform doesn't appear to have changed the spellings of loanwords to adapt to the language's phonology. The Sumerian words in Hittite texts were spelled exactly the same as they were spelled in Sumerian, even though the pronunciation was doubtlessly very different.
Is there any actual Hittite word with an h in the Egyptian? I must admit I didn't study it in great detail.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 19, 2017, 05:58:39 AM
1. a is reconstructed for PIE, but it is remarkably rare. That's one reason why I do not think that we definitely understand PIE phonology. I'm not sure if ay and aw are convincingly reconstructed and I am too lazy to look it up. It is quite irrelevant though, for what is with ey, ew etc.? So again, why do the PIE semi-vowels behave differently than the PIE laryngeals when the PIE laryngeals were really semi-vowels? Were they somehow different semi-vowels than the known ones, and if so, how did they sound? Which semi-vowel is likely to turn an e into an a?

2. That's true, h1 does not colour the e, but it lengthens it in a position like eh1. The evidence for its existence is weaker than the evidence for h2 and h3, but stronger than you claim. But if you dive into it and find good arguments that it did not exist I am open for that.

3.Yes, the Hittites called their language neshili. What does that have to do with anything? My argument was, why do Akkadians, Ugaritians, Hurrians and Egyptians spell Hittite words and names with ḫ rather than w or y, when the sound conventionally written as ḫ was in reality a w or y?

An actual Hittite name written in Egyptian hieroglyphs would be, for example, Hattusili. If you want you could try to find the hieroglyphic original of the peace treaty between him and Rameses to see how it was spelled. I can read Hieroglyphic, so I could tell you, how it was pronounced (as far as our insufficient knowledge of Egyptian phonology allows it, of course).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Pezevenk on May 19, 2017, 06:15:25 AM
I love these huge threads that nobody except of 2 people here understand.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 19, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
Quote
Which semi-vowel is likely to turn an e into an a?
Well, German eu turns to oy and ey turns to ahy.

But, I'll surrender. I didn't even believe the theses I represented. I just wanted to see if they can be supported on an Internet forum. Apparently, it's very hard to do that.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 19, 2017, 08:39:49 AM
I didn't even believe the theses I represented. I just wanted to see if they can be supported on an Internet forum.

 ???
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: wise on May 19, 2017, 09:15:31 AM
Indo-European linguistics is an hoax. Where is India and where is Europe. Look at the map first. Europe is in the center and India is in the edge. There is Asia between them. There is more similarity between Turkish, Chinese and European languages. There is no relevant. There is more similarity between European and other languages.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Pezevenk on May 19, 2017, 10:10:10 AM
Indo-European linguistics is an hoax. Where is India and where is Europe. Look at the map first. Europe is in the center and India is in the edge. There is Asia between them. There is more similarity between Turkish, Chinese and European languages. There is no relevant. There is more similarity between European and other languages.

I thought the maps were a hoax as well.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 19, 2017, 10:32:06 AM
Indo-European linguistics is an hoax. Where is India and where is Europe. Look at the map first. Europe is in the center and India is in the edge. There is Asia between them. There is more similarity between Turkish, Chinese and European languages. There is no relevant. There is more similarity between European and other languages.
I think you may be a troll, but I am going to respond anyway.
Compare the names for the numbers one to ten! Both Semitic and Indo-European languages fortunately have them and they are the most stable words in a language. Imagine yourself counting. "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten." Does it seem likely to you that someone would start to count "One, two, three, four, six, five, seven, eight, nine, ten" and that that would be accepted by other speakers?
If you compare the names for the numbers in different languages, you won't be able to deny that they are or aren't related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers_in_various_languages
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 19, 2017, 10:46:04 AM
I think you may be a troll, but I am going to respond anyway...

What ever you say...he can counter it

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70598.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70598.0)
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 19, 2017, 11:08:31 AM
I think you may be a troll, but I am going to respond anyway...

What ever you say...he can counter it

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70598.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70598.0)
Well, what can you do? Attempts to reconstruct Proto-Human language are way more exciting than an attempt to reconstruct, let's say, Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Semitic language. And sometimes you need to know quite a lot of linguistics to understand why they are pseudoscience (see the Nostratic hypothesis, it appears very scientific until you try to analyze it deeper).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 19, 2017, 12:24:24 PM
I am not sure if even I can differentiate between linguistics and pseudo-linguistics. I am having trouble believing that PIE had complex declension. I  "know" three distant Indo-European languages, Latin, English and Serbo-Croatian. English has no declension at all. Now, Latin and Serbo-Croatian both have relatively large number of cases, Latin has 6 and Serbo-Croatian has 7. However, if they really come from PIE, we would expect there to be similar endings. But they are not similar at all. Let's compare the Latin a-declension and Serbo-Croatian e-declension (I hope they are ones that are supposed to be cognate!)
Latin:
Singular
N femin-a
G femin-ae
D femin-ae
A femin-am
V femin-a
Ab femin-a
Plural
N femin-ae
G femin-arum
D femin-is
A femin-as
V femin-ae
Ab femin-is
Serbo-Croatian:
Singular
N en-a
G en-e
D en-i
A en-u
V en-o
L en-i
In en-om
Plural
N en-e
G en-a
D en-ama
A en-e
V en-e
L en-ama
In en-ama
How many matches do we get? Nominative singular are the same, that's the zeroth (It statistically doesn't make sense to count it, right?). Genitive singular and nominative plural are the same in both the Latin and Serbo-Croatian declension, that's the first one. Nominative plural and vocative plural are the same in both languages, that's the second one. What else is similar? If you are being generous, you might notice that Latin -am gives Serbo-Croatian -u by regular sound changes (-am -> -an -> nasal a -> u). That's the third similarity. But how many similarities we may expect by mere statistical coincidence. The obvious fact is, most of the endings in Serbo-Croatian are one of the five vowels, so we should expect 1/5=20% match. Since there are 7*2=14 endings, we should expect 14/5=2.8 similarities.
There are apparently no more similarities than it is to be expected by pure chance. And the same goes if you, for instance, compare Serbo-Croatian a-declension and Latin o-declension or Serbo-Croatian i-declension and Latin i-declension (Serbo-Croatian has three declensions).
Shouldn't we conclude from that that PIE didn't have a declension system, and that the complex declensions in Serbo-Croatian and Latin are simply an areal feature? What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 19, 2017, 01:36:32 PM
If you are really interested in linguistics, you should a least get some basic knowledge how language comparison works.

You cannot just compare how similar the endings look, because they are the result of historical changes that can obscure actual relationships beyond recognition. The important thing is that these changes are to an astonishingly high degree regular and thus detectable.

If you want to reconstruct a proto-language you will compare the oldest recorded stage of its daughter languages. You will not take modern day English and Serbocroatian, but Old High German, Old Norse, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic.

In fact though, modern day Slavic languages have retained PIE declension much better than languages like English or Hindi. Although the endings have changed, the system is still there (7 of the originally 8 cases), while it has broken down in most other modern descendants.

Even in Old Church Slavonic though the endings are already very different from the PIE ones and the relationship is not easy to figure out. PIE nominal grammar is best preserved in Sanskrit, Old Persian, Ancient Greek (though reduced to 4 cases), Latin (especially in the archaic language of the oldest inscriptions, less so in Classical Latin) and Continental Celtic. So the Indo-European declension system is obviously not an areal feature.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 20, 2017, 04:23:31 AM
I think we didn't understand each other. You know a bit of German, right? It happens to have a bit of a conjugation system. The German conjugation for present is -e -st -t -en -t -en. The corresponding Latin conjugation is -o -s -t -mus -tis -nt. So, the Latin -t should correspond to German -t, and the Latin -nt should correspond to German -en. And that's not the case outside of the grammatical endings. Latin -nt usually corresponds to German -nd: vent+us-Wind, cent+um-hund+ert, ant+e-und, find+en-pont+em, sunt-sind Latin t usually corresponds to German d: tres-drei, teg+o-deck+en, ten+u+is-dnn In the grammatical endings, regular sound-changes are either nonexistent or are distinctly wobbly. Could it be because PIE didn't actually have complicated grammar? Could it be that the deeper you go in time the grammar gets simpler instead of more complicated?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 20, 2017, 06:52:25 AM
I think we didn't understand each other.

I can only understand what you articulate.

You know a bit of German, right?

Ja, ich kann Deutsch.

It happens to have a bit of a conjugation system. The German conjugation for present is -e -st -t -en -t -en. The corresponding Latin conjugation is -o -s -t -mus -tis -nt. So, the Latin -t should correspond to German -t, and the Latin -nt should correspond to German -en. And that's not the case outside of the grammatical endings. Latin -nt usually corresponds to German -nd: vent+us-Wind, cent+um-hund+ert, ant+e-und, find+en-pont+em, sunt-sind Latin t usually corresponds to German d: tres-drei, teg+o-deck+en, ten+u+is-dnn In the grammatical endings, regular sound-changes are either nonexistent or are distinctly wobbly. Could it be because PIE didn't actually have complicated grammar? Could it be that the deeper you go in time the grammar gets simpler instead of more complicated?

No, the more deeper you go in time the more richer becomes the conjugation system. PIE had a very elaborate grammar.

Regarding the German verbal personal endings, as I said it is better to go back to Old High German. The endings were:

SG  1. -u  2. -is(t)  3. -it    PL  1. -emes  2. -et  3. -ent

Compared to Latin:

SG  1. -o  2. -s  3. -t   PL  1. -mus  2. -tis  3. -nt

Compared to PIE (thematic verbs)

SG  1. -o  2. -s  3. -t   PL  1. -me(s)  2. -te(s)  3. -ent

So the relationship is quite obvious.

But yes, why do the German endings of the 3rd P sg and pl not follow the expected sound shift t>d? That is a good question and I frankly do not know for sure. But it certainly does not mean that the endings are unrelated or that they did not exist in PIE.

You know Grimm's Law. It led to the shift

t>

This is the situation still retained in Gothic, were the 3rd P sg for example is -i. This is what we would expect. Or take Early Modern English as in the King james Bible

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

In High German a second sound shift led to the development

>d

But instead of d we have t. So the irregularity seems to be only in German, not in the Germanic languages as a whole.

I suppose it has something to do with a phenomenon called "Final-obstruent devoicing" occuring in German. It should also be mentioned that the second German sound shift was not as regular as the first one.

But you are right that sound shifts in grammatical endings do not always follow the same laws as sound shifts in roots.

For example the Middle English 3rd P sg -eth has turned into -s in Modern English, although there is no common rule th>s.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 21, 2017, 08:32:26 AM
I don't know now. To me it seems like any language that has a conjugation system would have similar endings to that degree. The corresponding Finnish conjugation, for example, is: -n, -t, -e, -me -te, -t.
I don't think that German -t endings can be explained by final consonant devoicing. If they could, then the perfect tense couldn't be formed with the ending -ed, but with -et.
And if the grammar gets more complicated the deeper you go in the past, how it is that pidgins and creoles have such simple grammars that become more and more complicated over time?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 09:21:25 AM
I don't know now. To me it seems like any language that has a conjugation system would have similar endings to that degree.

No.

The corresponding Finnish conjugation, for example, is: -n, -t, -e, -me -te, -t.

So?

I don't think that German -t endings can be explained by final consonant devoicing. If they could, then the perfect tense couldn't be formed with the ending -ed, but with -et.

No, the Old High German preteritum is not formed with an morphem -ed, but with -it- (weak verbs). But it is followed by personal endings, it is not at the end of the word. And in case you mean the German perfect participle, it is not formed by an ending -ed either, but -an or -t.

And if the grammar gets more complicated the deeper you go in the past, how it is that pidgins and creoles have such simple grammars that become more and more complicated over time?

Listen: We know the grammars of many ancient Indo-European languages. They are all quite complicated and resemble each other to an extant, that it is very very very very very unlikely that they all developed these specific features independently. So they must have inherited them from their common mother language. If you would know more abut IE languages, it would be obvious to you.

Typically in the course of history, these grammars became simpler, but there is no rule that this has to be so. It is just what we observe and it is not always the case.

I understand that as a "free thinker" you like to figure out things by yourself instead of learning what other people have found out. But, for example, if you want to repair your car by yourself, wouldn't it be helpful to know what a combustion engine is?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Crouton on May 21, 2017, 09:33:10 AM
This is an interesting thread. False prophet, you should consider an ama thread here. Even though I don't know how interested most of the people here are in linguistics.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 09:47:54 AM
you should consider an ama thread here

What is an ama thread?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 21, 2017, 10:35:59 AM
you should consider an ama thread here

What is an ama thread?

It means "ask me anything". For instance you would say "I am a linguist AMA". Then the questions asked of you should be regarding language.

I really enjoy reading your replies in this thread, but I wouldn't know what to ask in an AMA. I don't know enough about language.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 10:59:45 AM
you should consider an ama thread here

What is an ama thread?

It means "ask me anything". For instance you would say "I am a linguist AMA". Then the questions asked of you should be regarding language.


I'm a lousy linguist and this is actually not my field.  :-\

But I could make a thread "Ask me anything about obscure Indonesian jungle languages you've never heard about."
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 21, 2017, 11:04:27 AM
That would probably be very interesting. I would be interested in their stories, too. Do you know them?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 11:13:02 AM
That would probably be very interesting. I would be interested in their stories, too. Do you know them?

Yes, that is my work. Collecting and recording the stories, myths and songs of indigenous peoples in Indonesia.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 21, 2017, 12:27:39 PM
Oh, that is really great! You should tell us some stories someday.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 21, 2017, 01:07:30 PM
Oh, that is really great! You should tell us some stories someday.

If you are interested, you can look into this one:

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-94-011-9346-7 (http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-94-011-9346-7)

You must click on "Black Matter - download pdf" (pp 163-258)

It is a very famous text, a version of the origin myth of the Ngaju Dayak, recorded by a German missionary. It is heavy stuff, but if you scroll to vers 77 there begins one of the loveliest Adam and Eve stories I know. The scene depicts the first male and the first female floating in their boats on the primordial water, after the Tree of Life (the origin of all existence) has been destroyed by two mythical hornbills (dry land has not been created yet). It gives you an idea of the poetical talent and imagination of these headhunters, and you may also better understand why somebody can choose to dedicate his life to preserving this poetry.

By the way, I have met more genuine flat earthers than anyone of you. I think, that is even the reason, why I came to this site.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 21, 2017, 02:24:21 PM
If you ever wanted to put their FE beliefs in the Information Repository, you are welcome to. That would be much better and more interesting than most of what ends up in there.

I will read that story, I love origin stories.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 22, 2017, 12:50:41 AM
Quote
No.
Across the languages of the world, endings for 1st person tend to contain m, and endings for 3rd person tend to contain n. That's what I was referring to.
Quote
So?
Well, you see, there are two quite close matches. Latin -mus, Finnish -me, Latin -tis, Finnish -te. About as similar as Old German conjugation is to Latin conjugation. What you pointed out is that there are t's at the corresponding places in Latin and Old German, and used it as evidence that the conjugation systems are related. You admitted you have no explanation for how Latin t corresponds to German t (instead of the expected d), nor how is there an unexpected t in the 2nd person singular in Old German I am sorry, but it seems like you could use the same arguments to support the notion that Finnish and Latin conjugation systems are related.
Quote
No, the Old High German preteritum is not formed with an morphem -ed, but with -it- (weak verbs). But it is followed by personal endings, it is not at the end of the word. And in case you mean the German perfect participle, it is not formed by an ending -ed either, but -an or -t.
OK, sorry, my mistake.
Quote
They are all quite complicated and resemble each other to an extant, that it is very very very very very unlikely that they all developed these specific features independently.
Hey, listen, it's very easy to get fooled when you try to estimate that probability. Human brains are very good at recognizing patterns, but not so good at recognizing there is no pattern at all. Hittite, for example, had two basic conjugations for the present tense. One was -mi -si -zi -weni -teni -anzi, the other one was -hi -ti -i -weni -teni -anzi. Of course, you will ignore the second one, since it obviously doesn't support your thesis about PIE having a complex conjugation system. So, on the first one, how come does PIE t once correspond to z and once to t? How come does PIE m once correspond to m and once to w? Tocharian conjugation, was, for instance, -au, -t, -am, -emo, -cer, -em. Dear God, how could that possibly come from the PIE conjugation? Classical Armenian had -m -s -y -nk -k -n. OK, now, Armenian had complicated phonological developments which I haven't really studied, so perhaps it's possible to explain. But I doubt it, like, how can PIE t once turn to y (as is, I believe I've read somewhere, the general rule), once to k and once disappear? I'd expect similar results if I look into other old IE languages. The only thing that appears to be common to most of them and isn't a well-known cross-linguistic tendency is the 2nd person singular ending containing an s.
Quote
I understand that as a "free thinker" you like to figure out things by yourself instead of learning what other people have found out. But, for example, if you want to repair your car by yourself, wouldn't it be helpful to know what a combustion engine is?
That's true, if you know nothing better than an average person, you are better off trusting those who are smarter than you. But how do I estimate how much I know? Do I know better than 99% of people? Certainly. 99% of people have never heard of PIE, yet alone of the laryngeal theory and other things we are trying to discuss here. Do I know better than most of the linguists? Well, yes, most of the linguists I know haven't studied PIE at all. Better than some linguists who have studied PIE? Apparently, yes, some linguists have tried to explain the Croatian toponyms using their knowledge of PIE, and they made some pretty funny mistakes.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69762.msg1883525#msg1883525
Do I know better than Sihler, Mallory, Watkins and those guys? Certainly not, and that's probably not necessary. So, yeah, for me, it's very easy both to underestimate and to overestimate my own knowledge.
And what's way more important than factual knowledge is to know what credibility to assign to what you've read. How to differentiate between pseudoscientific language comparisons and scientific language comparisons? What Initikam is doing is obviously a pseudoscience, and Grimm's law is obviously scientific. But most of the things I've read are something in-between. Perhaps the only way to differentiate between pseudoscientific language comparisons and legitimate ones is to ask yourself: are those matches anything more than what we might expect by borrowing or simply chance? And, as I've shown, the attempts to reconstruct the PIE declension, by that criteria, raise the red flag.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 22, 2017, 03:51:22 AM
.....

You are a person who likes to assemble facts from the internet (not difficult), but without trying to gain any real understanding, if out of lack of patience or of ability I do not know. Sometimes you raise a good question, sometimes you have a good idea, but explaining something to you is really exhausting. I doubt if you will ever be able to differentiate science from pseudo-science.

I guess tthat is the point where people typically tell you: Sorry, I can't help you, you know better than me.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 25, 2017, 01:22:23 PM
OK, I am sorry if I hurt you, that wasn't my intention.
I am not saying that I know better than you (sg.). It seems to me that we simply know different things.
I didn't know that OHG had an -nt ending for the 3rd person plural, I was apparently misinformed about how past tenses are made in different Germanic languages, I didn't know about Hattushili having been mentioned in the Egyptian documents
And, based on what you wrote, you were probably unaware of the cross-linguistic tendencies in the conjugation systems. You have also done a few not-so-significant mistakes, like claiming there was a sound change in English grammatical endings that changed -th to -s, when the ending -s actually existed back in Old English, or that semi-vowels are unlikely to change e to a or to o
We simply happen to know different things and that's what Internet forums are for. And, in the age of the Internet, when it is incredibly easy to get to the factual information, it is very important to differentiate which information is credible and which isn't. We both know a lot about language comparison, so we can probably have a productive discussion about how to differentiate between scientific and pseudoscientific language comparisons.

So, a very common advice is to ask yourself: are those matches anything more than what we would expect by pure chance? This appears to work in the majority of cases. However, as I've shown, it would reject some quite accepted things in linguistics as pseudoscience. There are apparently no more matches between Serbo-Croatian and Latin declensions than what can be expected by chance. As for the conjugations, it's pretty hard to do the calculations because of the cross-linguistic tendencies. Since there are approximately, let's say, 20 consonants in a language and 6 endings in a present tense conjugation, mostly consisting of one consonant, you would expect there to be zero matches. Yet, comparing unrelated languages, that's not what you get. So, what other methods do we use to differentiate between science and pseudoscience? Peer-review? Well, if something passes a peer-review, that simply means it's not obviously wrong, at the first sight. Initikam's theses wouldn't pass a peer-review, but some more sophisticated theses about Adamian do. Actually, even the most obvious nonsense sometimes passes a peer-review. This linguist has tried to put the Etruscan in IE languages by showing "close phonetic proximity" between its numerals and the numerals in different(!) IE languages (no attempt to establish regular sound correspondences) and got cited on Wikipedia:
http://www.pittau.it/Etrusco/Studi/dadi.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Numerals
Should I try to evaluate those claims with the knowledge I happen to have? OK, one of the things those who have attempted to reconstruct the PIE declension agree on is that the accusative singular was made by adding a syllabic m. Where are there traces of it in Serbo-Croatian? SC word for seven is "sedam", from PIE *septm, so we should expect there to be an accusative ending -am. It appears as though there is no trace of anything like that. Where are the traces of it in English? By "seven" and "ten" we see that PIE syllabic *m corresponds to English -en, so the pronoun accusatives like "him" and "them" aren't the actual traces. Based on what I know, I would conclude that's a Latin innovation. Do those who attempt to reconstruct PIE declensions do apparent ad-hoc hypotheses, as do almost all of the pseudoscientists? Well, given what I know, it appears as though they do. By Ancient Greek numerals "hepta" and "deka", we see that the syllabic *m turns to a. Yet there are accusative endings -an and -on. So they invent that the syllabic sonorants loose their syllabicity when next to a laryngeal. Or they say that the s sounds in the genitive singular and nominative plural get lost in SC by the elision of the final consonants. Isn't that an ad-hoc hypothesis? A real elision of a final s would lengthen the vowel, wouldn't it? Yet the vowels are only lengthened sometimes in the genitive plural. OK, If I studied ancient IE languages in great detail, I might find some traces of that supposed PIE declension, but where would I end up if I spent that much time studying every single such proposal?
So, what do you think, how can I actually get better at differentiating pseudoscientific from legitimate language comparisons?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 26, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
OK, I am sorry if I hurt you, that wasn't my intention.

I cried all night, but I got better now.

So, what do you think, how can I actually get better at differentiating pseudoscientific from legitimate language comparisons?

1. Try to understand what people really mean when they say things instead of building strawmen. A discussion only makes sense when both sides strive for clarity instead of "winning" the argument or something. It is not about you and me.

2. Try to understand how comparative linguistics works, instead of claiming contradictions that are not there.

3. Stop posting stuff you find on the internet just for the sake of showing "how much you know about languages", because that's cranky.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 27, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Perhaps you are right.

But I see that there is a huge gap between what the theorists of linguistics say how comparative linguistics should be done and how it's actually done. There are quite a few etymological dictionaries that, for instance, connect "hormone" with "are", even though there is no conceivable IE root that would give, by regular sound changes, both words (s-mobile can't be in front of a laryngeal). And I've seen many examples of IE roots being invented just to explain two words in different IE languages, often including one toponym. Many theorists of linguistic science say that a paper that argues that something is an IE language by showing close phonetic proximity between its words and words in various IE languages would never pass a peer-review, and I see it does. Many people say that relatedness of languages are shown by regular sound correspondences, when, in fact, Hittite has been shown to be IE by its word for water. Comparative linguistics is done by trial and error of people relatively uneducated in it, regardless of what the theorists say.

Anyway, I am trying to help the Croatian historians by interpreting the toponyms. Many toponyms appear to be easily explainable by PIE. Which is to be expected, IE languages have been spoken here ever since mid 3rd millennium BCE (Vucedol culture). There a few astounding examples. The ancient name for the river Kupa is Colapis, and that's obviously *kwol+*h2ep (water with meanders). The ancient name for Zagreb is Andautonia, and that can quite easily be h2en+dheh2+u(n)t+on(=om), so that it means "by that which flows". However, the mainstream Croatian toponymy quite often doesn't appear to have looked into PIE. Issa, the ancient name for the island Vis, is widely stated to have an unknown, perhaps Pre-Indo-European, etymology. However, it can easily be derived from *yes+*eh2, in the sense "where a lot of springs are". There were spas there in the Roman times. And it appears that all the ancient names for the places in Croatia where the Roman spas were share the same root. Daruvar was called Balissa (I believe Bal means bright, from *bhel) and Varazdin was called Iasa. There are multiple rivers and streams whose names appear to be derived from *h3rews. On Risnjak, the mountain, there is a stream with the same name. Many people say that the stream was named after the mountain, although it could easily be the other way around. Also, the ancient name for the river Rasa is Arsia, and, in Slavonia, there is a stream called Ervenica. Cibalae, the ancient name for Vinkovci, could easily be from *kjey+*bel (strong house), and it seems to me that nobody suggested it. The IE word for valley, *h1eyn, also appears in multiple toponyms. Incerum, the ancient name for Pozega, is often said to have an unknown etymology. However, it can easily be *h1eyn+*kjer, so that it means "the heart of the valley". The ancient name for Donji Miholjac is Mariniana. It could be from Marinus, a common roman name, but it's more likely a Latin folk-etymology of *mreys+*h1eyn, "marshy valley", which is what Donji Miholjac actually is. The mountain Papuk is said to be named after the Papuk stream, but the stream is said to be of unknown etymology. I believe it is actually from *bhebhogj (repetitive participle of *bhogj, "that which flows and flows"). The mount Psunj is also said to be of unknown etymology, even though its ancient name, Pisunus, is very similar to the PIE word for resin, *pisnu, and Psunj has a lot of softwood. The river Sutla is also said to be of of unknown etymology, although it can very easily be *suh1nt, participle of *sewh1, so that it means "that which waters the ground". Pazin is also said to be of unknown etymology, even though it's sensical as *ph2senti (pasture) There are many toponyms which are more sensibly explainable using PIE than using SC. Mainstream etymology connects the river Vuka with the SC word "vuk", for "wolf". However, it's more likely from zero grade of *welk (a PIE onomatopoeia for "to flow", syllabic l often vocalizes to u in SC even in today's loanwords), isn't it? Baranja is usually derived from "baran", a spurious SC word for lamb, but isn't it more sensical to derive it from the PIE word for marshland, *beh3r? The river Orljava is said to be derived from SC word for echo, "oriti", but isn't it more sensical to derive it from *h1or (to flow)? There are some villages whose names mainstream etymology derives from "daleko" (far away), like Dalj and Daljok. Isn't it more sensibly derived from *dhel, in the sense "milkmen"? Though, there are some place names that would appear fanciful in PIE. The ancient name for Valpovo is Iovalum, which would mean "magical beer" (*yow+*h2elut). There was quite a demonstrable word there, something like *ker, meaning "to flow", occurring in many streams and rivers (Krapina, Karasica, Krka, Korana, Krndija [the stream]), without an obvious IE root. Or the suffix *-la in the river names like Orljava and Sutla. There are some toponyms which multiple languages could give a sensical explanation for, for instance, Pannonia (both Latin "pannis" and PIE *pen appear as sensical origins). I've tried to reconstruct some grammar of the ancient language of Slavonia based on the toponyms. Obviously, it was a centum language. I believe it had an ablaut, but not with the vowels e and o, but with a and u. For example, Mursa (the ancient name for Osijek) and Marsonia (the ancient name for Slavonski Brod) obviously share the same root (probably *mreys), and Papuk would then be a grammatical repetitive of *bhogj. Because of the epenthetic vowels (Ervenica), I'd suggest that the accent was on the first syllable (as in Ancient Greek "aster", "oros" or "ennea"). Do you think I am doing it right?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 27, 2017, 11:47:26 AM
Many people say that relatedness of languages are shown by regular sound correspondences, when, in fact, Hittite has been shown to be IE by its word for water.

I read your post only until here (I did not read most of your last post either). Cause this sentence is a perfect example for your cluelessness.

No, Hittite has not been "shown to be IE by its word for water". Hrozny FIRST HAD HE IDEA that Hittite could be an IE language by discovering that in a certain sentence WATAR most likely - because of the context - meant water. That turned out to be a good idea, but he could have discovered it by other means too. He did not "show" it that way.

So how did Hrozny really "show" that Hittite is an IE language? Guess what - by regular sound correspondences, an IE core vocabulary, a fairly typical IE declension system and other morphological features, including ablaut, a phenomenon very rare in non-IE languages.

So, indeed

Quote
Many people say that relatedness of languages are shown by regular sound correspondences...

because that is how it works, for Hittite as for any other language.


EDIT: Hittite has some peculiarities though that sets it apart from other IE languages. So some linguists prefer to speak of an Indo-Hittite language family with IE proper as one branch and the Anatolian languages (Hittite, Luwian etc.) as the other branch. But those are details, the relationship is well established.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 28, 2017, 03:10:22 AM
Actually, no, what Hrozny used to prove that Hittite was an IE language was the sentence "Nu NINDA-an ezzateni watar-ma ekutteni". By the time he established the sound correspondences and the grammar, it was already accepted that Hittite was IE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedřich_Hrozn
The sources disagree on some details, but the basic story is always the same (curiously, none of them appear to mention the irony that ekutteni and aqua are now thought to be false cognates).

As for the regular sound correspondences, let me ask you a question. Would you expect to be understood by a native German speaker who knows no English if you tried to speak English while turning every t in the beginning of a word to ts, every t not in the beginning of a word to s, every th to d, every s to z, every v to b, every d to t, every oo to u, every ou to au, every ei to a, every ea to o, and so on? Or do you think you would be better understood if you just spoke English? Please answer me honestly.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on May 28, 2017, 04:34:55 AM
Actually, no, what Hrozny used to prove that Hittite was an IE language was the sentence "Nu NINDA-an ezzateni watar-ma ekutteni". By the time he established the sound correspondences and the grammar, it was already accepted that Hittite was IE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedřich_Hrozn
.

The wikipedia article only says what I told you. No, he did not "use the sentence to prove that Hittite is IE." Again, he only first had the idea, that it is IE when he encountered this sentence. He assumed it based on this sentence. Do you understand that proving something and assuming something is not the same?
Also, before you post anything, please understand the difference between "accepted" and "proven". The former requires only a reasonable amount of probability.

The sources disagree on some details, but the basic story is always the same (curiously, none of them appear to mention the irony that ekutteni and aqua are now thought to be false cognates)

I do not know that, I'm not an expert of Hittite. Source?

As for the regular sound correspondences, let me ask you a question. Would you expect to be understood by a native German speaker who knows no English if you tried to speak English while turning every t in the beginning of a word to ts, every t not in the beginning of a word to s, every th to d, every s to z, every v to b, every d to t, every oo to u, every ou to au, every ei to a, every ea to o, and so on? Or do you think you would be better understood if you just spoke English? Please answer me honestly.

I do not know why this is even relevant, but my answer is this:

When the English speaker would use an artificial English where all words inherited from the West Germanic parent language are pronounced applying the High German sound shift, a German speaker may recognize more words than if he would use normal English. If the English speaker  would apply the same sound shifts to the French loan words as well (which would, of course, make little sense), he would recognize less words.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on May 29, 2017, 09:58:26 AM
Quote
Again, he only first had the idea, that it is IE when he encountered this sentence.
Don't you think that translating the poetry using the etymological method and publishing a paper about it is a bit more than just having the first idea about Hittite being IE?
Quote
Also, before you post anything, please understand the difference between "accepted" and "proven". The former requires only a reasonable amount of probability.
I don't think so. On this forum, it's been proven many times that the Earth is flat. Yet it's universally accepted among the astronomers that it's round. So, what do you think is more likely to be true? If almost all experts in the field accept something, there is a very good reason for it, and that reason isn't necessarily easy to understand for those who don't know much about the field. Something being almost universally accepted by the experts is better evidence for it being true than what evidence is an alleged proof of it.
OK, do you think that the thing William Jones noticed, when he said that no philologist who examines Greek, Latin and Sanskrit could deny they are related, is something like that Sanskrit bh corresponds to Latin f and Greek ph? Or do you think he noticed the similarities in, let's say, the numerals?
Do you think it hadn't been obvious that Germanic languages are IE all until the Grimm's law was found?
Quote
I do not know that, I'm not an expert of Hittite. Source?
"Ekutteni" comes from PIE *h1egwh, and Latin "aqua" comes from *h2ep, and the two roots are probably unrelated.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₂kʷeh₂
Quote
I do not know why this is even relevant
I meant something like: "Does anyone really believe in the 'regular sound changes'?"

I must admit I expected some people to be on my side here.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 06, 2017, 08:55:47 AM
I just don't understand it. Why does almost every discussion I have on Internet forums turn into ad-hominem attacks? This time I chose to discuss something probably nobody has strong feelings about, like PIE grammar, and not politics or religion. I've spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours educating myself about it, so that I can be sure I know what I am talking about. Yet I'm unable to rationally discuss it. Any idea what's actually going on?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 06, 2017, 09:07:41 AM
Man, how can we discuss about something you do not understand when you do not understand that you do not understand it?

What actually do you mean when you say you are a "freethinker"?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 06, 2017, 09:02:21 PM
By labeling myself as a free thinker, I meant that I trust the conclusions I make myself, and that I don't like arguments from authority.

And how can I know that I don't understand the linguists? What if I actually understand them correctly? What if the mainstream attempts to reconstruct PIE grammar and the mainstream etymology of the Croatian toponyms are, in fact, nonsense? Do you know about SCIgen? It's a computer program that generates nonsense about informatics, but uses so powerfull language that it can sometimes even trick the experts. Namely, they attribute its apparent incoherence to their own lack of knowledge. What if that's what's going on in modern linguistics? What if it's that just very few people dare to contradict somebody who talks about PIE grammar?

Besides, they are linguists, so isn't it their job to make themselves understood? If they can't, isn't it their fault, and not mine?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 06, 2017, 10:26:38 PM
By labeling myself as a free thinker, I meant that I trust the conclusions I make myself, and that I don't like arguments from authority.

But what about the conclusions made by others who came before you and were more knowledgeable than you? Are they worth nothing? It is no argument from authority when you first learn from others and then, when you know enough, make your own conclusions. We must all start as a student, we cannot start as researchers. It is the habit (and the arrogance) of the crank, that he never wants to be a student only.

And how can I know that I don't understand the linguists? What if I actually understand them correctly? What if the mainstream attempts to reconstruct PIE grammar and the mainstream etymology of the Croatian toponyms are, in fact, nonsense? Do you know about SCIgen? It's a computer program that generates nonsense about informatics, but uses so powerfull language that it can sometimes even trick the experts. Namely, they attribute its apparent incoherence to their own lack of knowledge. What if that's what's going on in modern linguistics? What if it's that just very few people dare to contradict somebody who talks about PIE grammar?

You have only a very dim idea of what you call "mainstream linguistics". So it is illogical from you to expect that your judgement about it has any value. And indeed the thoughts you have uttered about that matter are mostly irrelevant and sometimes nonsensical. I do not say that, because I believe in "mainstream linguistics" (I partially object to it as well), but because I have learned what we know about the history and behaviour of languages. You have not. You have no interest in learning something, you want to find out everything by yourself. That's impossible for a human and that's why you fail, in thought and, probably, also in life.

Besides, they are linguists, so isn't it their job to make themselves understood? If they can't, isn't it their fault, and not mine?

Haha. You have a point there.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 07, 2017, 06:07:38 AM
I am not trying to figure out everything by myself. Like I've said, I've spent around thousand hours reading about linguistics, mostly on-line (I'll discount everything I have learned in school as not true linguistics). A signifficant amount of time I've spent reading what's not so relevant to what we are discussing here, I've also spent a signifficant amount of time reading what I now consider to be quackery. Low-balling it, let's say I've spent 200 hours reading what other people have written about PIE grammar and things relevant to it. Isn't that more than enough to be able to make some conclusions by myself?
As for not knowing how grammars of languages tend to develop, listen, I've spent hours and hours reading about pidgins and creoles and I know nothing more about it than I used to know. There are so many controversies, there is no scientific consensus about it whatsoever.
And can you link me to something you think I need to learn? Calling me names isn't helping.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 07, 2017, 06:17:48 AM
You wasted your time.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 08, 2017, 12:26:12 AM
Well, if I stop learning linguistics right now, then I certainly did waste a lot of time. But, quite often, it happened to me that I was reading something for hours and hours from various sources and it didn't make any sense to me. Then I find a few sentences somewhere and, when I read them, suddenly everything makes perfect sense. That's why we have Internet forums, right?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 11, 2017, 09:13:14 PM
Will you "help" me or should I look elsewhere (and probably be confirming to myself what I already believe)?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 11, 2017, 09:42:22 PM
Don't listen to false prophet, he knows not what he speaks majority of the time. He is a ball of spiteful rage with no outlet besides here.

Also, don't let him fool you about what he knows in linguistics, he knows one area well, rest not so much. The area he knows well is rarely a use here.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 12, 2017, 04:35:22 AM
Whenever you try to estimate how much you know, or how much someone else knows, keep the Dunning-Kruger effect in mind.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 12, 2017, 05:48:15 AM
Will you "help" me or should I look elsewhere (and probably be confirming to myself what I already believe)?

I frankly do not know what you want.

At first you challenged the laryngeal theory based on some twisted thoughts and than you revealed that you did not even believe it.

Then you assumed that PIE did not have a sophisticated conjugation, only because there is a t in German when there should be a d, refusing my explanation for it (which could certainly be wrong) without reason.

Than you claimed Hrozny tried to prove the IE nature of Hittite with one sentence based on a misunderstood remark in a wikipedia article and there seems to be no way to tell you that you are wrong by that.

And when people tell you that you are confused it's "name calling".
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 12, 2017, 05:53:13 AM
Whenever you try to estimate how much you know, or how much someone else knows, keep the Dunning-Kruger effect in mind.

I am not estimating, he stated it in a post the exact area he works in, as well as the areas he knows from personal research or less specialized roles.

As for me calling him a spiteful ball of rage with no outlet besides here...I stand by that as an opinion highly backed by evidence. As I have said many times I still like him though for some reason. Our Feud has been going on since before you were here and it will continue on after you leave.

Lurk more before making silly comments
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 12, 2017, 06:07:21 AM
As I have said many times I still like him though for some reason.

Because I remind you on your abusive father who always screamed what a dumbass you are when he beat you with the horse whip and you still can't stop loving him?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 12, 2017, 06:34:25 AM
As I have said many times I still like him though for some reason.

Because I remind you on your abusive father who always screamed what a dumbass you are when he beat you with the horse whip and you still can't stop loving him?

This proves both of my statements..of why I like him as well as he is a ball of impotent rage with no outlet  :-*
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 12, 2017, 06:55:25 AM
As I have said many times I still like him though for some reason.

Because I remind you on your abusive father who always screamed what a dumbass you are when he beat you with the horse whip and you still can't stop loving him?

This proves both of my statements..of why I like him as well as he is a ball of impotent rage with no outlet  :-*

You know it works when you do not take your opiates.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 20, 2017, 10:08:46 AM
OK, let's say you are right. That, if I studied Ancient Greek grammar and Finnish grammar in very depth, it would somehow be clear to me that one of them is related to Latin and that one isn't. For now, after hundreds of hours of studying linguistics, I have no idea even what to look for, but let's say there are people who are somehow able to do that. Are you happy now?
Will you help me with the Croatian toponyms?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70713.msg1913893#msg1913893
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 20, 2017, 12:07:06 PM
OK, let's say you are right. That, if I studied Ancient Greek grammar and Finnish grammar in very depth, it would somehow be clear to me that one of them is related to Latin and that one isn't.

Friend, a modest knowledge of Ancient Greek and Sanskrit is enough to tell you that the two must be related. While a modest knowledge of Finnish should tell you that Finnish is most likely not an IE language.

Will you help me with the Croatian toponyms?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70713.msg1913893#msg1913893

Sorry, I know very little about Slavic languages and do not have the time to change this sad fact.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 23, 2017, 06:30:15 AM
Quote
Friend, a modest knowledge of Ancient Greek and Sanskrit is enough to tell you that the two must be related. While a modest knowledge of Finnish should tell you that Finnish is most likely not an IE language.
Of course. If you see the numerals, it's fairly obvious which are or aren't related (Armenian perhaps being the only exception among IE languages). The numbers 2 and 10 start with the same sound in almost all IE languages, and almost nowhere else (Kind of weird that more ancient languages didn't use the phrase "two hands" for 10, as Proto-Indo-European apparently did). However, if you see the conjugational endings, it's not obvious at all.
Quote
Sorry, I know very little about Slavic languages and do not have the time to change this sad fact.
It's not about Slavic languages at all. I am talking mostly about the historical toponyms in Croatia, ones attested centuries before the Slavic languages were even spoken there. They appear to be easily explainable using Proto-Indo-European.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 23, 2017, 04:40:45 PM
Quote
Friend, a modest knowledge of Ancient Greek and Sanskrit is enough to tell you that the two must be related. While a modest knowledge of Finnish should tell you that Finnish is most likely not an IE language.
Of course. If you see the numerals, it's fairly obvious which are or aren't related (Armenian perhaps being the only exception among IE languages). The numbers 2 and 10 start with the same sound in almost all IE languages, and almost nowhere else (Kind of weird that more ancient languages didn't use the phrase "two hands" for 10, as Proto-Indo-European apparently did). However, if you see the conjugational endings, it's not obvious at all.

You cannot just look at individual endings, you must look at the whole system. Then you will find that there are very specific similarities: the distinction between primary, secondary, stative and imperative endings, the distinction between thematic and athematic verbs, the augment - the list goes on and on, in fact almost every feature of Greek verbal grammar has a counterpart in Sanskrit. The material relationship of the endings is not obvious at first glance, but it becomes obvious as soon as you discover the regularities.

Quote
Sorry, I know very little about Slavic languages and do not have the time to change this sad fact.
It's not about Slavic languages at all. I am talking mostly about the historical toponyms in Croatia, ones attested centuries before the Slavic languages were even spoken there. They appear to be easily explainable using Proto-Indo-European.

I only know that prior to the Slavs another people with IE language dwelt in present day Croatia: the Illyrians. About them I know even less than about Slavic. Their language may have been ancestral to Albanian, but that is far from certain. Yet when you are interested in Croatian toponymy you may want to look into what little remains from Illyrian as attested by Greek and Roman authors.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 24, 2017, 08:52:48 AM
Quote
The material relationship of the endings is not obvious at first glance, but it becomes obvious as soon as you discover the regularities.
Simple regular sound changes would be obvious pretty soon. When you see the English and German numerals side-by-side, it becomes obvious that English t in the beginning of a word corresponds to German ts and that English s corresponds to German z. The same doesn't happen with the grammatical endings.
There are some examples of languages that are grammatically very similar, but you can't establish regular sound correspondences, like Japanese and Korean.
And quite often you can't translate word-for-word from English to German, which are otherwise quite closely related.
Typological similarity is not an evidence of language relatedness.
Quote
I only know that prior to the Slavs another people with IE language dwelt in present day Croatia: the Illyrians. About them I know even less than about Slavic.
It almost certainly wasn't a single language. In Istria, for example, there is a river (Raa) previously named Arsia, and, in Slavonia, there is a stream named Ervenica. Both of them probably come from *h3rews (like Latin "ruo"), but their names are themselves very different. Though those languages could be related, the epenthetic vowels themselves are quite rare in IE.
Quote
Their language may have been ancestral to Albanian, but that is far from certain.
That's probably just a politicization of science (to which linguistics is very vulnerable). If you assume the Messapian language was closely related to Illyrian, it can't be. There is no trace of satemisation in Messapian, and Albanian is a satem language. You can explain away the famous Messapian phrase "Klohi Zis" (listen, Zeus) by saying that kj didn't turn to s because of the following liquid consonant, but you can't explain the Messapian word for ten, "dehatan", the same way. Or, even worse, the Illyrian personal name Decomos.
Quote
Yet when you are interested in Croatian toponymy you may want to look into what little remains from Illyrian as attested by Greek and Roman authors.
I think you can get way further by knowing a bit of PIE. For example, Zagreb was called Andautonia in ancient times. That could easily be *h2en+*dheh2+*unt+*om, "near that which flows (the Sava river)". There are many such toponyms. And, of course, similar or the same elements repeat again and again. There are, for example, only three places in Croatia with ancient thermae: Vis (Issa), Daruvar (Balissa) and Varadin (Iasa). That root (*issa~*iasa) could easily be *yes+*eh2 (where a lot of springs are). I've listed many more examples here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70713.msg1913893#msg1913893
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 24, 2017, 12:07:12 PM
Typological similarity is not an evidence of language relatedness.

I do not speak about "typological similarity". I try to explain you how obvious it is that Greek and Sanskrit grammars are closely related. Typology has nothing to do with it. Typology is only about relatively superficial similarities, while Greek and Sanskrit show a deep systematic relationship, even idenity in many details, that could not be explained by something like areal typology. Also, the morphemes of both languages and multiple words are demonstrably related as well, they are just two very typical IE languages. I do not know what you are getting at. Do you still believe, that PIE did not have a verbal conjugation as reconstructed?

About the rest of your post, as I said, I cannot say much, only that the connection between Messapian and Illyrian is as far as I know an outdated theory and that linguists consider Liburnian as a different language than Illyrian. Since the former was spoke in Istria, you are likely right that the examples you gave point to two different languages.

No, the idea that Illyrian is ancestral to modern day Albanian is actually not a "politicization of science". It is a natural (but so far unproven) assumption, because if the Albanians do not stem from the Illyrians, where the hell do they come from or where did they hide all the time? But of course the idea has been politicized among Albanian nationalists (including Enver Hoxha)
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 25, 2017, 04:39:07 AM
Quote
I do not speak about "typological similarity".
You talked about them both having traces of ablaut, different endings for indicative, conjunctive and imperative, different endings for whether a stem ends on consonant or a vowel Aren't those typological similarities? Valid evidence for relatedness would be if you could deduce what are the corresponding endings in both languages by simple regular sound changes.
Quote
They are just two very typical IE languages.
Modern IE languages typically don't have those things.
Quote
Do you still believe that PIE did not have a verbal conjugation as reconstructed?
Almost certainly not. The mainstream reconstruction of the PIE grammar changes rapidly, and it's very unlikely that the current one is correct.
Quote
About the rest of your post, as I said, I cannot say much, only that the connection between Messapian and Illyrian is as far as I know an outdated theory and that linguists consider Liburnian as a different language than Illyrian.
I didn't know that connection between Messapian and Illyrian is an outdated theory. I know that mainstream Croatian linguistics considers Liburnian to have been an Anatolian language. That's based on the apparent loanwords from Anatolian in the Chakavian dialect. It's been estimated than Liburnian went extinct by the 16th century. Unfortunately, it hasn't been attested in its written form.
Quote
Since the former was spoke in Istria, you are likely right that the examples you gave point to two different languages.
I didn't know that. I know of a theory that equates the Liburnians with the "Illyrian" tribe Dindarii, that dwelt on the Dinara mountain.
Did Anatolian languages have the epenthetic vowels? I didn't know that.
Quote
It is a natural (but so far unproven) assumption, because if the Albanians do not stem from the Illyrians, where the hell do they come from or where did they hide all the time?
Well, almost certainly not from a language that had undergone centumization and that had the epenthetic vowels!
Quote
About the rest of your post, as I said, I cannot say much.
So, do you think that my method for interpreting the toponyms is correct? If not, why not? It appears to be relatively similar to the method Hrozny used to decipher Hittite.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 25, 2017, 08:38:29 AM
Quote
I do not speak about "typological similarity".
You talked about them both having traces of ablaut, different endings for indicative, conjunctive and imperative, different endings for whether a stem ends on consonant or a vowel Aren't those typological similarities? Valid evidence for relatedness would be if you could deduce what are the corresponding endings in both languages by simple regular sound changes.

No, I spoke about the conjugational system as a whole, regardless of the relatedness of the morphemes, that is not the same as typology. But even many linguists do not understand that. But since morphemes of Greek and Sanskrit can be shown to be related by applying regular sound changes, this is not even relevant.

Quote
Modern IE languages typically don't have those things.

Because they have lost them.

Quote
Quote
Do you still believe that PIE did not have a verbal conjugation as reconstructed?
Almost certainly not. The mainstream reconstruction of the PIE grammar changes rapidly, and it's very unlikely that the current one is correct.

There are some uncertainties, but fact is, PIE had a complicated verbal system and many IE languages have preserved this system very well in their earliest attested form. They did not develop those similar systems independently from each other nor by "areal typology", they inherited it from PIE.


Quote
I know that mainstream Croatian linguistics considers Liburnian to have been an Anatolian language. That's based on the apparent loanwords from Anatolian in the Chakavian dialect.

I doubt that

Quote
It's been estimated than Liburnian went extinct by the 16th century.

No, it went extinct in ancient times

Quote
So, do you think that my method for interpreting the toponyms is correct

No idea
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 25, 2017, 02:25:04 PM

Quote
So, do you think that my method for interpreting the toponyms is correct

I am not a specialist in IE, so the number of PIE words I know by heart is limited and I do not have the time to check if the roots that you present are right.

Take for example your h2en+*dheh2+*unt+*om, "near that which flows"

h2en means "there" in PIE. There is a pronominal root h1e, so its nom ntr may be h1en, "that". Are both roots related? I do not know.

What is "dheh2"? I looked up the PIE root for "flow" and found only srew and plew. There is a root dheu that means "flow", attested in the Germanic languages (one of the subfamilies of IE I am quite knowledgeable). I do not know if it is a PIE verb.

the formative morpheme for building the present participle is ont

How exactly do you explain the ending of Andautonia?  When om is meant to be the nom ntr marker, there can be no formative suffix behind it.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 26, 2017, 09:12:42 PM
Quote
But since morphemes of Greek and Sanskrit can be shown to be related by applying regular sound changes, this is not even relevant.
For instance, Sanskrit ending for 3rd prs sg present is "ti", and Ancient Greek has a zero morpheme there. How to explain that? Was there a stage in AG when final i-es weren't allowed but final t-es were?
Quote
I doubt that
I haven't looked much into the Liburnian language, I just assumed what's written on the Croatian Wikipedia about it to be the mainstream science. Besides, explaining the apparent Anatolian loanwords in the Chakavian dialect by Liburnian being a late Anatolian language doesn't appear particularly unreasonable.
Quote
h2en means "there" in PIE. There is a pronominal root h1e, so its nom ntr may be h1en, "that". Are both roots related? I do not know.
*h2en is the source of the English preposition "on". In PIE, it was a postposition meaning "by" or "near". PIE postpositions obviously easily become prefixes in daughter languages.
Quote
What is "dheh2"? I looked up the PIE root for "flow" and found only srew and plew. There is a root dheu that means "flow", attested in the Germanic languages (one of the subfamilies of IE I am quite knowledgeable). I do not know if it is a PIE verb.
*dheh2 is the source of the root *danu (whence, for instance, Danubed) in the Old European Hydronimy. That is, *danu=*dheh2+*nu, "that which flows" (or, more accurately, "that which is flown"). The Latin word "fons", I think, is also said to come from *dheh2 (although ablaut doesn't happen regularly in the participles).
Quote
How exactly do you explain the ending of Andautonia?  When om is meant to be the nom ntr marker, there can be no formative suffix behind it.
"-onia" was a common ending in Vulgar Latin, there is no reason to think it was the native one.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 26, 2017, 10:46:51 PM

For instance, Sanskrit ending for 3rd prs sg present is "ti", and Ancient Greek has a zero morpheme there. How to explain that? Was there a stage in AG when final i-es weren't allowed but final t-es were?

The i of ti went lost in most IE languages, so it is likely to have got lost very early. I can't see a problem here.

Quote

*h2en is the source of the English preposition "on". In PIE, it was a postposition meaning "by" or "near".

Ok
 
Quote
*dheh2 is the source of the root *danu (whence, for instance, Danubed) in the Old European Hydronimy. That is, *danu=*dheh2+*nu, "that which flows" (or, more accurately, "that which is flown"). The Latin word "fons", I think, is also said to come from *dheh2 (although ablaut doesn't happen regularly in the participles).

I know that danu- is a word for river. I do not know if a root dheh2 is attested otherwise. But deriving danu from a form dheh2=nu sounds theoretically reasonable

Quote

"-onia" was a common ending in Vulgar Latin, there is no reason to think it was the native one.

I understood before that you explained the -on- in -onia from IE -om.

But it is entirely possible that h2en+*dheh2+*unt+*om, "at the river" became something like andauto-. The common IE root for river though in European hydronomy is danu-. But when you can find other instances in Croatia or nearby areas, where a form dauto- means river you have a point.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 27, 2017, 10:47:51 AM
Quote
The i of ti went lost in most IE languages, so it is likely to have got lost very early.
In Croatian you say "On će to oprati." ("HE will wash it."), but you say "Oprat će to." ("He/she/it will wash it.") Is it possible that it dates back to PIE? Did PIE have some sort of sandhi that caused the final "i" to be elided in most of the cases?
Quote
I do not know if a root dheh2 is attested otherwise.
I know it is supposed by some to be the source of the Latin "fons", whence "fountain". Though PIE *dheh2+*nt would give Latin "fans", and it's not clear to me why an ablaut would have happened. Sometimes it just happens that I go off the mainstream science without actually knowing that.
Quote
But when you can find other instances in Croatia or nearby areas, where a form dauto- means river you have a point.
There are a few streams named "Darda" or similar. But that doesn't count, right?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on June 27, 2017, 01:20:25 PM

In Croatian you say "On će to oprati." ("HE will wash it."), but you say "Oprat će to." ("He/she/it will wash it.") Is it possible that it dates back to PIE? Did PIE have some sort of sandhi that caused the final "i" to be elided in most of the cases?

In Old Church Slavonic the 3rd person sg ending of the present tense is -тъ, that goes back to the PIE 3rd person primary ending -ti

But your question has nothing to do with the issue we are currently discussing because će oprati is obviously a compound tense and oprati is an infinitive, not a conjugated form, so I do not know why you bring it up here. -ti is already the marker of the infinitive in Old Church Slavonian. I do not know if it was reduced to -t in certain instances or if it was always -ti and the -t/-ti opposition is a Croatian innovation. But it does not go back to PIE. So the answer of your final question is no.

If PIE had features of external sandhi at all is discussed among linguists.

Quote
I know it is supposed by some to be the source of the Latin "fons", whence "fountain". Though PIE *dheh2+*nt would give Latin "fans", and it's not clear to me why an ablaut would have happened. Sometimes it just happens that I go off the mainstream science without actually knowing that.

I do not know it either. What pops up quickly at the internet is not always "mainstream science" (whatever that means)

Quote
There are a few streams named "Darda" or similar. But that doesn't count, right?

Not really.

Finding a reasonable etymology for a toponym remains guesswork as long as it is an isolated example. If Hrozny had only that one famous sentence, his suggestion what it means would have remained an assumption either. Luckily he had thousands of clay tablets to test his idea.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on June 28, 2017, 05:56:20 AM
Quote
In Old Church Slavonic the 3rd person sg ending of the present tense is -тъ, that goes back to the PIE 3rd person primary ending -ti
Really? I thought the final schwas in OCS were just epentheses caused by the law of open syllables.
Quote
But your question has nothing to do with the issue we are currently discussing.
We were discussing why the final i-es in PIE conjugations got lost in many IE languages (and subsequently, in languages such as AG, triggered the loss of the final t-es). A reasonable assumption is that PIE -ti and -t were interchangeable, or that the sandhi dictated which one would occur. The same happens in Croatian. So, the question whether the two phenomena are related naturally comes to mind.
Quote
Finding a reasonable etymology for a toponym remains guesswork as long as it is an isolated example.
I wouldn't say it's an isolated example. Near Osijek, there is a stream named Darda, and, in Baranja, there is one named Darna. Don't you think they are too similar to be unrelated? Plus, Za(=near)-dar is quite a common toponym in  both Slavonia and Baranja. Though I am not sure if *daut would give *dar(d) in Croatian by regular sound changes. I know only that *aur turns to *ubr (Epi-daurum->Dubrovnik). That's why I am trying to deal only with the ancient toponyms as much as I can.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 01, 2017, 06:32:15 AM
Does anyone know some Old Church Slavonic word with the segment "aut"?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 02, 2017, 09:54:39 AM
Quote
In Old Church Slavonic the 3rd person sg ending of the present tense is -тъ, that goes back to the PIE 3rd person primary ending -ti
Really? I thought the final schwas in OCS were just epentheses caused by the law of open syllables.

In pre-Slavic period - and if you hold the view that Baltic and Slavic are closely related in Common Balto-Slavic - final t got lost, so OCS -тъ must at least come from a form -tV rather than -t.

Quote
But your question has nothing to do with the issue we are currently discussing.
We were discussing why the final i-es in PIE conjugations got lost in many IE languages (and subsequently, in languages such as AG, triggered the loss of the final t-es). A reasonable assumption is that PIE -ti and -t were interchangeable, or that the sandhi dictated which one would occur. The same happens in Croatian. So, the question whether the two phenomena are related naturally comes to mind.

Tell me when I am wrong, but I assume that the switch from oprati to oprat is dictated by word order rather than by phonetics. In this case it is no example of external sandhi.

Also, the question remains if it is peculiar to Croatian or a widespread phenomenon in Slavic languages attested in the earliest documents. I do not know that.

Quote
Finding a reasonable etymology for a toponym remains guesswork as long as it is an isolated example.
I wouldn't say it's an isolated example. Near Osijek, there is a stream named Darda, and, in Baranja, there is one named Darna. Don't you think they are too similar to be unrelated? Plus, Za(=near)-dar is quite a common toponym in  both Slavonia and Baranja. Though I am not sure if *daut would give *dar(d) in Croatian by regular sound changes. I know only that *aur turns to *ubr (Epi-daurum->Dubrovnik). That's why I am trying to deal only with the ancient toponyms as much as I can.

I can say nothing about that.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 03, 2017, 02:16:20 AM
OK, let's limit ourselves to what we know. I don't know Croatian grammar in details, I am just a native speaker. So, my interpretation that Andautonia=*h2en+*dheh2+*ont+*om is possible but shaky. What do you think of my interpretation of the root *issa~~*iasa in Issa, Balissa and Iasa (places with ancient thermae), that it comes from PIE *yes+*eh2 ("where a lot of springs are")?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 03, 2017, 12:10:21 PM
What do you think of my interpretation of the root *issa~~*iasa in Issa, Balissa and Iasa (places with ancient thermae), that it comes from PIE *yes+*eh2 ("where a lot of springs are")?

I only know that *yes- is the source of Germanic *jesana which actually meant "to ferment". The root may have been a word for "boil" or something.

*eh2 is the feminine suffix, although initially it may have been a formative suffix for abstract or uncountable nouns.

So how do you get the meaning "where a lot of springs are"?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 04, 2017, 06:24:16 AM
Quote
I only know that *yes- is the source of Germanic *jesana which actually meant "to ferment". The root may have been a word for "boil" or something.
Well, the same semantic shift apparently occurred in Croatian. The word "vrelo" means "spring", but it would literally mean "what you boil with" ("vreti" is "to boil").
Quote
*eh2 is the feminine suffix, although initially it may have been a formative suffix for abstract or uncountable nouns.
Isn't is the source of both the Latin and Croatian ending -a, the plural for the neuter gender? The plural of "vrelo" is "vrela", for example. It seems likely that the suffix for the collective nouns would be reanalyzed as a regular plural suffix.
Quote
So how do you get the meaning "where a lot of springs are"?
As a collective noun from the stem *is~*ias, meaning "spring" (Illyrian apparently had an ablaut with the vowels a and u, rather than o and e, compare the city names such as "Mursa", "Marsonia" and "Mariniana", all on marshy land).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 05, 2017, 09:13:02 AM
I do believe that the feminine ending -eh2 and the pl ntr -eh2 both originate from the same suffix building uncountable or abstract nouns. But the suffix had already turned into a case ending in PIE.

A noun meaning "spring" can very well derive from a verb meaning "to boil".

But is it possible in IE to derive a noun from a verb just by adding the feminine suffix -eh2 to the verbal root? I am not sure. I know instances of nouns from verbal roots just by adding the case marker -s to the root, but they also involve ablaut e>o.

In case it is legit, that would result in a word yes-eh2 just meaning "springs" though, not "where a lot of springs are".

Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 05, 2017, 09:25:26 AM
By the way you was right that Istria was outside of the realm of the Liburnians. The ancient inhabitants of Istria may have spoken a Venetian dialect. The language of the Veneti is much better attested than the language of the Illyrians (they used a script) and very interesting.

But maybe "Liburnians" was rather a political entity than a people with a common language. Their proper names suggest that they may have consisted of speakers of Venetian and of Illyrian dialects.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 05, 2017, 10:45:56 AM
Quote
I know instances of nouns from verbal roots just by adding the case marker -s to the root, but they also involve ablaut e>o.
Like I've said, Illyrian probably had an ablaut of the vowels a and u, and not e and o.
But let's assume that Iasa comes from *yoseh2. In this case, the Illyrian a-grade would correspond to PIE o-grade. Could the nouns be formed by the zero-grade and the ending -eh2 (to explain Issa and Balissa)?
Though this leaves the hydronims such as Colapis (assuming it's *kwol+*h2ep, water with meanders) difficult to explain.
Was it actually a rule in PIE that o-grade turns to zero-grade in declension of nouns (like in *mory-*mreys or *wodr-*udens)?
Quote
The language of the Veneti is much better attested than the language of the Illyrians (they used a script) and very interesting.
Yeah, I've read about it a bit. I've heard of a theory that it was actually an early Germanic language, but it doesn't make much sense to me. For example, they show a parallel with Venetic "mego" and German "mich" (as if both of them have the ending -go), but there appear to be no traces of Grimm's law beginnings (like change of p to f, which would almost certainly be visible in writing). Maybe it had some contact with Uralic languages (Hungarian has this ending -go in the accusatives of the pronouns), what do you think?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 05, 2017, 01:31:03 PM
But let's assume that Iasa comes from *yoseh2. In this case, the Illyrian a-grade would correspond to PIE o-grade. Could the nouns be formed by the zero-grade and the ending -eh2 (to explain Issa and Balissa)?

I do not know of a pattern in IE to derive nouns from verbal roots by zero-grade + -eh2.

Was it actually a rule in PIE that o-grade turns to zero-grade in declension of nouns (like in *mory-*mreys or *wodr-*udens)?

It is typical for root nouns, but not for thematic nouns or nouns on -eh2.

Quote
The language of the Veneti is much better attested than the language of the Illyrians (they used a script) and very interesting.
Yeah, I've read about it a bit. I've heard of a theory that it was actually an early Germanic language, but it doesn't make much sense to me. For example, they show a parallel with Venetic "mego" and German "mich" (as if both of them have the ending -go), but there appear to be no traces of Grimm's law beginnings (like change of p to f, which would almost certainly be visible in writing). Maybe it had some contact with Uralic languages (Hungarian has this ending -go in the accusatives of the pronouns), what do you think?

No, the Venetic mego is obviously derived from me=ego, an invention it indeed shares with Germanic. It is extremely far-fetched to compare it to Hungarian, also I cannot find an accusative ending -go in Hungarian pronouns. And why would it even matter, Hungarian was not around at the time. Is there a Proto-Uralic accusative suffix -go for pronouns?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 07, 2017, 12:12:32 AM
Quote
It is typical for root nouns, but not for thematic nouns or nouns on -eh2.
Wouldn't a noun *yos, derived from *yes, be a root noun?
Quote
No, the Venetic mego is obviously derived from me=ego, an invention it indeed shares with Germanic. It is extremely far-fetched to compare it to Hungarian, also I cannot find an accusative ending -go in Hungarian pronouns. And why would it even matter, Hungarian was not around at the time. Is there a Proto-Uralic accusative suffix -go for pronouns?
You are probably right. I haven't looked into it very much. Aren't the Hungarian pronouns "me" and "you" "engo" and "tego"?

Can Venetic be used to explain the "Liburnian" toponym Alvona as *h2elbh-on (near the hill)? I think I've read that *bh sometimes turned to v in Venetic, as in its word for "brother".
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 07, 2017, 02:53:07 AM
Quote
It is typical for root nouns, but not for thematic nouns or nouns on -eh2.
Wouldn't a noun *yos, derived from *yes, be a root noun?

yos- would be a root noun. In case it was proterostatic it could form a gen isens. If it was acrostatic like dom-, "house", it would have gen sg yes.

yes-eh2 though (and I do think now that such a form should actually be no problem) would not be a root noun, the stem would not change throughout the paradigm.

Quote
No, the Venetic mego is obviously derived from me=ego, an invention it indeed shares with Germanic. It is extremely far-fetched to compare it to Hungarian, also I cannot find an accusative ending -go in Hungarian pronouns. And why would it even matter, Hungarian was not around at the time. Is there a Proto-Uralic accusative suffix -go for pronouns?
You are probably right. I haven't looked into it very much. Aren't the Hungarian pronouns "me" and "you" "engo" and "tego"?

No, the forms are "engem" and "teged". So you have a -g- at least, but those forms are a Hungarian peculiarity, not found in other Uralic languages.

Can Venetic be used to explain the "Liburnian" toponym Alvona as *h2elbh-on (near the hill)? I think I've read that *bh sometimes turned to v in Venetic, as in its word for "brother".

It turned into f  word-initially.

I do not think Illyrian or Liburnian had postpositions. Also you may consider h2el-/al- "to grow". h2el-u would be a nice u-stem that could mean "herb" or something.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 07, 2017, 12:29:40 PM
Quote
yes-eh2 though (and I do think now that such a form should actually be no problem) would not be a root noun, the stem would not change throughout the paradigm.
I don't know now. There isn't much literature about PIE word formation on-line, is there? I somehow can't resist the temptation to suppose that Iasa had originally an o-vocalism. Like, Marsonia and Mariniana almost certainly come from *mory (in the sense "marshland").
Quote
No, the forms are "engem" and "teged". So you have a -g- at least, but those forms are a Hungarian peculiarity, not found in other Uralic languages.
OK, my mistake again. Nevertheless, if German "mich" comes from *me-ego, how do you explain "dich"?
Quote
It turned into f  word-initially.
Well, its word for brother starts with a v. Maybe the rule was something like: bh was deaspirated between vowels, and turned to v otherwise.
Quote
I do not think Illyrian or Liburnian had postpositions.
I meant the suffix -h3onh2-. Sorry, I didn't know it was reconstructed like that in the Laryngeal theory.
Quote
Also you may consider h2el-/al- "to grow". h2el-u would be a nice u-stem that could mean "herb" or something.
Sounds good. "Poeka gora" mountain was called "Alma" (probably meaning "fertile") in antiquity. Descriptive toponyms though are way more frequent than ones named after plants, and *h2elbh is relatively common in toponyms (Alps, Albania...).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 09, 2017, 09:32:07 AM
Quote
It turned into f  word-initially.
Well, its word for brother starts with a v. Maybe the rule was something like: bh was deaspirated between vowels, and turned to v otherwise.

The word for brother starts with the signs for "vh". The rendering of Latin names and loanwords suggest that this combination was pronounced as "f" (maybe bi-labial). Moreover, since the h-sound went lost in Venetic, the double-sign was later often reduced to "h". So "vhraterei" or (unattested)*"hraterei" was actually "fraterei"

Quote
Also you may consider h2el-/al- "to grow". h2el-u would be a nice u-stem that could mean "herb" or something.
Sounds good. "Poeka gora" mountain was called "Alma" (probably meaning "fertile") in antiquity. Descriptive toponyms though are way more frequent than ones named after plants, and *h2elbh is relatively common in toponyms (Alps, Albania...).

We can "alu" as well give the meaning "meaddow" or "field", it is just a shot into the dark. As for h2elbh, I take it PIE *bh did not turn into "w" in Illyrian? In Venetic it did not.

Nevertheless, if German "mich" comes from *me-ego, how do you explain "dich"?

In Proto-Germanic it is ek, "I", acc. mek and u, "you", acc. ek. The latter cannot be explained etymologically, It is probably just an imitation of the 1st person ending.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 12, 2017, 11:22:35 AM
Do you have some literature on-line you think might help me with those things?
Anyway, thanks for helping me recognize the fallacies I was making. I probably don't need much more of your help.
I must say this forum is way better for discussing linguistics than the Croatian forums about linguistics are. Perhaps it's because there are only two people here who try to discuss it, and not tens of people who write irrelevant nonsense. And perhaps it's also because most of the people on the Croatian forums about linguistics are linguistic purists (people trying to convince others with pseudoscience they don't know how to speak their own language).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 29, 2017, 02:54:52 AM
I've tried to understand the PIE grammar by translating some texts into PIE. How would you translate "Pater Noster" into PIE? I would do it like this:
ph2ter nos, kwis dyewi h1esi!
dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye.
h1sieh1s h3regjs.
bhuh2ih1end kwih2 tuh2 welh1si.
nebhesu h1ereykwe.
kwih2 nos ne h1senti dhogwhey tosmi dheh3dhi. (Proto-Indo-European didn't have a word for bread, I've tried to translate this line as: "Give us what we need for today.")
bheh2gdhikwe leykwoneh2 nos,
kwom weykwe bheh2gmos leykwetrmos nos.
sentme ne drtomos,
solh2eskwe nsme trnomos.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 31, 2017, 11:48:00 AM
I've tried to understand the PIE grammar by translating some texts into PIE. How would you translate "Pater Noster" into PIE?

Why would I do that? But it has been done a couple of times, for example:

(http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/kuhl1/proto-indo-european-lp.jpg)

This transcription is a phonological interpretation of the merely etymological transcription.

He choses the lok. pl dyeusu instead of lok sg. That is very sensitive, because the sg would maybe point to the entity "heaven" rather than to the location "heaven". Though in the 4th line he seems to forget that.??? Also the form should be diwsu, not dyeusu with accent on -su, because it is a hystero-kinetic root. The right form for the lok sg by the way is diwi, not dyewi, but it is not really sure if the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew that  :).

What is dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye?  If you change tebhye to tebhey or toy, it may mean "he shall give a name to you".

h1sieh1s h3regjs?

bhuh2ih1end kwih2 tuh2 welh1si, "the things that you want may become/may appear"? No, that's not good.

nebhesu h1ereykwe? Nebhesu is "in the clouds". Dyewi was better.





Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on July 31, 2017, 12:18:20 PM
Quote
That is very sensitive, because the sg would maybe point to the entity "heaven" rather than to the location "heaven".
I don't understand.
Quote
The right form for the lok sg by the way is diwi, not dyewi, but it is not really sure if the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew that.
On Wiktionary it's written that the correct forms are *dyew and *dyewi.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dyḗws
Quote
What is dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye?
"Let your name be celebrated." dheh1 is said to be the source of the Latin words "festum" and "fanum" and of the Greek word "theos".
Quote
h1sieh1s h3regjs?
"Be a king"? Or is there a PIE word for "kingdom"?
Quote
No, that's not good.
Why not? Isn't that what "Your will be done!" means? Is there a PIE word for "will"?
Quote
Nebhesu is "in the clouds".
Yeah, you are right.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on July 31, 2017, 02:35:48 PM
Quote
That is very sensitive, because the sg would maybe point to the entity "heaven" rather than to the location "heaven".
I don't understand.

Dyews was in a way already "God", so I am not sure if it could be used as a place. The plural works here as an objectification.

Quote
The right form for the lok sg by the way is diwi, not dyewi, but it is not really sure if the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew that.
On Wiktionary it's written that the correct forms are *dyew and *dyewi.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dyḗws

In fact it is hard to say if loc sg was a strong or a weak casus. Look at the Sanskrit on the same wikipedia page:

दिवि (div) / द्यवि (dyvi, loc.sg.). The first comes from diwi, the second from dyewi. That's why I joked that even the PIEs themselves could not tell.

Quote
What is dheh1to h1noh3mn tebhye?
"Let your name be celebrated." dheh1 is said to be the source of the Latin words "festum" and "fanum" and of the Greek word "theos".

dheh1 does not mean celebrate in PIE. "h1noh3mn dheh1" clearly means "give a name".

Quote
h1sieh1s h3regjs?
"Be a king"? Or is there a PIE word for "kingdom"?

The version I posted has h3regyom, "kingship".

Quote
No, that's not good.
Why not? Isn't that what "Your will be done!" means? Is there a PIE word for "will"?

The posted version goes quite safe with welmenom.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on August 01, 2017, 12:28:18 AM
Quote
Dyews was in a way already "God", so I am not sure if it could be used as a place. The plural works here as an objectification.
I think that they actually tried to translate the Latin "qui es in caelis" literally. Perhaps that doesn't sound strange in Latin. In Croatian, they translated this as "koji jesi na nebesima" ("nebesima" being the locative plural of "nebo", meaning "sky"), and that does sound strange.
Quote
dheh1 does not mean celebrate in PIE. "h1noh3mn dheh1" clearly means "give a name".
I don't really see how can the words for "feast", "feria", "temple" and "diety" be derived from a word meaning "to put". *dheh1 had to mean something like "celebrate". I thought that "to give" was *deh3.
Quote
The posted version goes quite safe with welmenom.
What does -men- mean?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 01, 2017, 01:59:28 PM

I don't really see how can the words for "feast", "feria", "temple" and "diety" be derived from a word meaning "to put". *dheh1 had to mean something like "celebrate".

In German "kaputt" is a colloquial term for "broken, not functioning any more". it comes from the Latin word "caput" meaning "head". And "Gift" means "poison". It comes from Proto-Germanic "geban" meaning "to give".

So "caput" must alway have meant "broken", and "geban" obviously meant "to poison sb", because, as we know, words cannot change their meaning. Right?

I thought that "to give" was *dheh3.

Ancient IE languages rather said "to put a name (on)" than "to give a name", but the meaning of the phrase in English is "give a name".

In search for an example for that I found this wikipedia site (wiki is not bad for IE)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81n%C3%B3mn%CC%A5 (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h%E2%82%81n%C3%B3mn%CC%A5)

It also translates "give a name" h₁nmn̥ dʰh₁


What does -men- mean?

It is the supposed mediopassive participle -menos. That is the well known affix -men- with theme vowel -o-.

http://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/alumni%20senior%20essays/Jesse%20Storbeck.pdf (http://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/alumni%20senior%20essays/Jesse%20Storbeck.pdf)
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 06:21:24 AM
I was just Googling the Laryngeal Theory for a while and I ended up here. There seems to have been some very long and intelligent discussion on this forum. I am not willing to read it all. Can you guys just quickly summarize your arguments for and against the Laryngeal Theory? Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 08:41:04 AM
I was just Googling the Laryngeal Theory for a while and I ended up here. There seems to have been some very long and intelligent discussion on this forum. I am not willing to read it all. Can you guys just quickly summarize your arguments for and against the Laryngeal Theory? Thanks in advance.

Read the thread, lazy noob.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 10:07:16 AM
Maybe I am just being efficient, and not lazy. The two people who were discussing it initially are obviously still around, so why should I bother reading the whole thread?
Have you read the whole thread? Can you summarize me what's it about?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 10:21:20 AM
I may be a noob to this forum, but I am not a noob to linguistics. And why would I need to have experience on a Flat Earth Society forum?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Crouton on August 02, 2017, 10:42:22 AM
Maybe I am just being efficient, and not lazy. The two people who were discussing it initially are obviously still around, so why should I bother reading the whole thread?
Have you read the whole thread? Can you summarize me what's it about?

I'd be more than happy to provide a summary.

I am low ranking cabinet member for the Trump administration tasked with finding ways to make American waffles great again. I've funded an expedition led by FalseProphet, who is a crypto archeologist, to recover some artifacts from beyond the ice wall. A number of these artifacts contain writings that are proving difficult to translate so we're training flat assembler, who is a highly customized chatbot, to assist in interpreting them.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 11:20:16 AM
I doubt you've read the thread. Do you even know what Laryngeal Theory is?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Crouton on August 02, 2017, 11:36:43 AM
Is this what the world is coming to? Coming to a forum. Pretending not to have read a thread and asking for a summary and then trying to embarrass anyone who is kind enough to respond by pointing out any minor discrepancy? It sounds like rude behavior to me.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
Can you summarize me what's it about?

Only the first few posts are about Laryngeal theory.
Then comes stuff about German.
Then Babyhighspeed rants against me.
Then I lose patience with FlatAssembler.
Then it's about Croatian toponyms.
Then we pray to God Almighty in Proto-Indo-European.
Then you came along.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 12:13:57 PM
@crutonius: Why do you think I must have read the thread? If you claim for a thread about linguistics that it's a thread about a conspiracy theory, that's an almost unexplainable "discrepancy". You are one being rude, I am trying to discuss linguistics, and you bombard me with conspiracy theories.

@FalseProphet: So, could you please summarize the arguments for and against the Laryngeal Theory?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 12:17:10 PM
Don't forget the bit about the penguins. FalseProphet is going to solve their language and steal their cookies.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 12:21:01 PM
Gotta crazy moderators here, don't ye?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 12:23:10 PM
The penguins are the crazy ones. They will getcha.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 12:33:57 PM
Some people may have fun here, but I'd liika read a good text about the Laryngeal Theory as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 12:44:08 PM
Don't forget the bit about the penguins. FalseProphet is going to solve their language and steal their cookies.

It's extremely hard. They have the same expression for: "Where is the next research station?" and "Please surround me and pick viciously at my lower parts!"
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Crouton on August 02, 2017, 12:46:37 PM
@crutonius: Why do you think I must have read the thread? If you claim for a thread about linguistics that it's a thread about a conspiracy theory, that's an almost unexplainable "discrepancy". You are one being rude, I am trying to discuss linguistics, and you bombard me with conspiracy theories.


There's a lot of ins and outs to this whole situation that it takes some time for someone new at this to appreciate.  I'd recommend starting by reading through these threads:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.0

I certainly don't mean to be coming off rude.  I think perhaps this misunderstanding might be because I'm an American with English as my first language and some of the nuance of how we communicate may be lost in translation when someone who does not speak English as their first language reads some of what we write.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 12:58:11 PM
@FalseProphet: I know this is a bit of philosophical question, but do you think that maybe the penguins are, on average, more intelligent than humans? They can understand each other without words.

@crutonius: I'd like to be introduced to this forum by some of its most intelligent members, if at all.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 01:16:40 PM
do you think that maybe the penguins are, on average, more intelligent than humans?

No they are complete idiots.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 01:20:49 PM
When it comes to science and technology, yes. But they appear to understand each other better than humans do.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 01:33:30 PM
When it comes to science and technology, yes. But they appear to understand each other better than humans do.

Humans are very good in non-verbal communication, too. Only our modern culture does very little to support this endowment.

But once I made friends with a young pigeon. She did some awesome things that I did not expect of pigeons. I would actually love to raise a raven. They are the smartest birds.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 01:39:40 PM
Well, different sign languages are no more mutually intelligible than different spoken languages are. Is the same true for animal languages?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 01:46:45 PM
Well, different sign languages are no more mutually intelligible than different spoken languages are. Is the same true for animal languages?

Animals do not talk much, at least in the sense of exchanging concepts. I think there is a common base for mammals. The facial expressions. the body language, there is much we share. I understood quite well how my cat felt and what he wanted, what was going on in his head. That's why birds are so interesting, they are quite different from us.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 02:19:34 PM
How do you mean animals are not exchanging concepts? We know what sound monkeys make when they mean "snake", and it's different from the sound they make when they mean "lion". Animals also regularly exchange abstract concepts. Birds can agree on the direction they will fly to. And we know that if a bee makes one circle in the air, that means "near", but if it makes an infinity sign in the air, that means "far away". These aren't things people who don't speak the same language could do.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 02:27:03 PM
How do you mean animals are not exchanging concepts?

They do, but not many concepts. Monkeys have a few dozens different "words" (actually sentences).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 02:48:45 PM
More words doesn't mean more concepts. Many of the words we use when we talk mean very little, or nothing at all. The most common word in English is "the", for example. It's also been hypothesised that all the concepts we use can be reduced to the so-called semantic primes, whose number is some low tens. When you take into account that human languages need to be learned, it's pretty obvious that animal comunication is more efficient than human communication is.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 03:12:45 PM
More words doesn't mean more concepts. Many of the words we use when we talk mean very little, or nothing at all. The most common word in English is "the", for example. It's also been hypothesised that all the concepts we use can be reduced to the so-called semantic primes, whose number is some low tens. When you take into account that human languages need to be learned, it's pretty obvious that animal comunication is more efficient than human communication is.

Since body language and facial expressions of mammals and humans are very similar, let us stick to the acoustic type.

The difference here between human language and monkey language is that the latter consists primarily of interjections: the sound that is produced is a whole sentence, like "there is a tiger". They do not have acoustic means to talk to each other like "there was a tiger yesterday. In human language, we divide a sentence into words and a word into sounds, leading to grammar, syntax and a phonetic system. Monkeya have these things only in a very basic and occasional form. Even if there are only some dozens "basic concepts" (I do not know that), human language can deliberately combine those concepts to form more abstract and sophisticated expressions.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 03:27:27 PM
Do not forget the dinosaurs built boats, so obviously they had language.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 03:31:22 PM
Do not forget the dinosaurs built boats, so obviously they had language.

Why? You do not have to talk when you build a boat.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 03:33:03 PM
Yes, they had to talk so that they could get the stuff to build the boats.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 03:37:42 PM
Yes, they had to talk so that they could get the stuff to build the boats.

When some alpha dinosaur started to fetch some boat stuff from the forest all the other started to do the same.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 03:39:41 PM
yeah, but they had to tell their fish stories at night by the fire.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 03:42:07 PM
yeah, but they had to tell their fish stories at night by the fire.

That's the issue. They ate their fish raw.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 03:54:32 PM
Do you think LovesLinguistics loves linguistics enough to ever read the thread himself?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 02, 2017, 03:55:21 PM
Let's just stop talking about that. I noticed that one of the most popular threads on this forum was a thread about veganism, mostly involving discussions like this one. Such discussions obviously don't lead us anywhere.
So, can you summarize what arguments for and against the Laryngeal Theory were used earlier in this thread?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 02, 2017, 04:05:22 PM
They're all on the first page of this thread, did you even read that far?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 02, 2017, 04:20:45 PM
So, can you summarize what arguments for and against the Laryngeal Theory were used earlier in this thread?

Nobody will ever do that, in no possible universe.

This article is quite interesting:

https://www.academia.edu/25121020/The_Laryngeal_Theory_has_no_Theory_Incompatibility_with_the_Anatolian_Data_excludes_a_Viable_Model (https://www.academia.edu/25121020/The_Laryngeal_Theory_has_no_Theory_Incompatibility_with_the_Anatolian_Data_excludes_a_Viable_Model)
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 03, 2017, 02:04:08 AM
I've actually seen that article. Seems to me that it's mostly red herring. As for the actual arguments against the second and the third laryngeal, I don't have the knowledge of the Anatolian languages needed to evaluate them. Their main argument is the inconsistency in the evolution of *h3 in Anatolian.

I've just read the opening post. FlatAssembler is most likely a troll. I don't see how can anyone with the basic knowledge of Indo-European linguistics (which FlatAssembler obviously has) think that laryngeals were semi-vowels. He might have just said that the laryngeals were bird-singing sounds. If someone were to deny the existence of the laryngeals, he can simply claim that initial *a turned into "ha" in Anatolian and then that *o turned into "a" (just like the initial h in Greek was regularly added before y). Those who try to disprove the Laryngeal Theory generally either try to reconstruct a short *a in late PIE, or try to reconstruct an *a that ablauts with an *e. What do you think is a valid response to those arguments? An argument for the Laryngeal Theory which is rarely used, but is actually pretty strong, is that it explains the epenthetic vowels in Ancient Greek. What do you think?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 03, 2017, 09:36:55 AM
FlatAssembler is a self taught linguist, I don't think he's a troll. He's just sure that he's right about everything.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 03, 2017, 10:44:45 AM
I am also not a professional linguist. But errors made by self-taught linguists are usually the likes of "Finnish probably borrowed its pronouns from Russian." or "The Latin word 'habere' and the English word 'have' are cognates". Claiming that laryngeals were equivalents of the semi-vowels without explaining the supposed conditioning rules is more of an error in logic than a lack of knowledge of linguistics.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Crouton on August 03, 2017, 10:55:04 AM
I also doubt flatassember is a troll.  I think he just has a different perspective on things.  He's Croatian I think.  I've noticed that it takes time to understand someone's culture before you can really get what they're saying.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 03, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
If he has learned about linguistics from the Internet, he is pretty much a member of the same Internet culture we are.
My native language is Bosnian, by the way, which is fairly similar to Croatian.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 03, 2017, 11:35:59 AM
Welcome to the FES!
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 03, 2017, 11:48:15 AM
Though I can't really amaze you with my study of the Bosnian toponyms, because I haven't done any. I only know that Bosnia was originally a river name, probably derived from Proto-Indo-European word *bhogj-nu (in Bosnian it's translated to mean "tečnost", perhaps that'd be rendered in English as "flowness" or "fluid").
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 04, 2017, 04:22:46 AM
Nobody here is really interested in the Laryngeal Theory, I can see. No wonder. It's primarily about accentology, and I am having problems getting the accents right even in my own language. I can imagine nobody here tried to pronounce an ancient language with a right accent.
So, tell me something about yourselves, guys!
I see FlatAssembler likes to talk about linguistics and informatics. When it comes to linguistics, he will talk even if he doesn't have anything smart to say, and I guess that the same is about informatics. As can be seen from the thread he linked to in his signature, he also likes to make fun of the conspiracy theorists.
FalseProphet is a professional linguist, and he is, unlike most linguists, deeply interested in linguistics. He knows in details things that aren't in his field. He is also somewhat interested in philosophical idealism, when he says in his signature "Life is just a tale". Why exactly did he choose a nickname "False Prophet"?
I can't figure out much about SpaceCowGirl or Crutonius. SpaceCowGirl probably believes that the Earth is flat, right? What about Crutonius? What are your other interests?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Crouton on August 04, 2017, 04:02:03 PM
Nobody here is really interested in the Laryngeal Theory, I can see. No wonder. It's primarily about accentology, and I am having problems getting the accents right even in my own language. I can imagine nobody here tried to pronounce an ancient language with a right accent.
So, tell me something about yourselves, guys!
I see FlatAssembler likes to talk about linguistics and informatics. When it comes to linguistics, he will talk even if he doesn't have anything smart to say, and I guess that the same is about informatics. As can be seen from the thread he linked to in his signature, he also likes to make fun of the conspiracy theorists.
FalseProphet is a professional linguist, and he is, unlike most linguists, deeply interested in linguistics. He knows in details things that aren't in his field. He is also somewhat interested in philosophical idealism, when he says in his signature "Life is just a tale". Why exactly did he choose a nickname "False Prophet"?
I can't figure out much about SpaceCowGirl or Crutonius. SpaceCowGirl probably believes that the Earth is flat, right? What about Crutonius? What are your other interests?

That's a very broad subject.  I'd politely suggest that it would be better to discuss specific topics in different threads so as to not detract from the discussion at hand here.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 05, 2017, 12:53:47 AM
It's not like we've been discussing the Laryngeal Theory all along. So, you are not sure if the Earth is round or flat? At least you are being honest with yourself then.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on August 05, 2017, 01:06:53 AM
Quote
The difference here between human language and monkey language is that the latter consists primarily of interjections
People thought the same about the Aboriginal languages until they investigated them in details, didn't they?
Quote
I see FlatAssembler likes to talk about linguistics and informatics. When it comes to linguistics, he will talk even if he doesn't have anything smart to say, and I guess that the same is about informatics. As can be seen from the thread he linked to in his signature, he also likes to make fun of the conspiracy theorists.
Well, since I am interested in social sciences, Internet forums are perfect places to do experiments. And I like to investigate how people react to nonsense. My other interests are anarchism and digital physics (the hypothesis that the world we live in is just another computer simulation).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 05, 2017, 01:13:59 AM
A weird guy even for this forum, ain't ye?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 05, 2017, 07:51:01 AM
A weird guy even for this forum, ain't ye?

Oh, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 05, 2017, 10:48:23 AM
Quote
The difference here between human language and monkey language is that the latter consists primarily of interjections
People thought the same about the Aboriginal languages until they investigated them in details, didn't they?

WTF...

Internet forums are perfect places to do experiments. And I like to investigate how people react to nonsense.

...oh, good to know.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 05, 2017, 12:37:59 PM
Anyway, when you were discussing Indo-European grammar, you somehow assumed that Indo-Uralic hypothesis is certainly wrong, that it's absurd to say that Finnish grammar is related to the Latin grammar. Why do you think that's the case?

I have looked into it a bit, and it seems fairly reasonable. The similarities are fairly systematic. For instance, in both PIE and Proto-Uralic does accusative singular and 1st person singular present end with *m, interrogative pronouns and conjunctive enclitic start with the same sound in both languages, in PIE it's *kw, in Uralic it's *k, and there are a few other such correspondences in grammar. Personal pronouns also sound almost identical You think this can all be just a coincidence?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 05, 2017, 01:42:20 PM
Anyway, when you were discussing Indo-European grammar, you somehow assumed that Indo-Uralic hypothesis is certainly wrong, that it's absurd to say that Finnish grammar is related to the Latin grammar. Why do you think that's the case?

I have looked into it a bit, and it seems fairly reasonable. The similarities are fairly systematic. For instance, in both PIE and Proto-Uralic does accusative singular and 1st person singular present end with *m, interrogative pronouns and conjunctive enclitic start with the same sound in both languages, in PIE it's *kw, in Uralic it's *k, and there are a few other such correspondences in grammar. Personal pronouns also sound almost identical You think this can all be just a coincidence?

The close correspondences are not numerous.  1st person -m- is too widespread in the languages of the world to be significant. 3rd person is actually different, remains 2n person -t-. Striking is that both proto languages had the same endings for akk and abl.

Other correspondences are rather arbitrary and assumed shared vocabulary is below the margin to tell apart chance, borrowings and inheritance.

Typologically both proto languages are very far from each other. They have a very different spirit.

Is it reasonable to consider a relationship between the two? Sure, especially because the suspected homelands of both languages are relatively close. But if so, the relationship must be very distant - far beyond that we could prove it with sound linguistic methods. So if we do not find some ancient language that connect them somehow, it will remain a matter of speculation.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 05, 2017, 02:09:15 PM
Generally I'm not a fan of large scale comparison. But it would be interesting to construct (not reconstruct) a language, from which both language families could have derived. It could for example be used for a film that plays somewhere 15 000 years ago. It's not "science", but it would not be without merit.

Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 06, 2017, 01:51:08 AM
The first person singular -m is not that common. In the native American languages, the endings for 1st and 2nd person are usually -n and -m. And why would the proto-language have to go so far back in time?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 06, 2017, 09:26:16 AM
The first person singular -m is not that common. In the native American languages, the endings for 1st and 2nd person are usually -n and -m. And why would the proto-language have to go so far back in time?

In the majority of Native American languages  "the endings for 1st and 2nd person are usually -n and -m"? Are you sure? I took a random sample of 5 North American native languages of 5 different families (Lakota, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Navajo, Ojibwe). Only Navajo had a nasal element for the 2nd Person.

Just a guess. Uralic and IE, in case they are related, are more distant than, let's say, Italian and Hindi. Of course there are examples of accelerated change in languages, especially when they come under the influence of other languages.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 06, 2017, 12:22:49 PM
It's one of the bases of the Amerind hypothesis. Supporters of Indo-Uralic often appeal to it in response to the argument that -m in 1st person and -t/s in 2nd person are cross-linguistic tendencies. I must admit I haven't looked into it.

Anyway, how do you mean that English "gift" and German "Gift" are cognates? Wouldn't a German cognate to English "gift" be "Gibze" or "Gebze"?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 06, 2017, 12:53:40 PM
It's one of the bases of the Amerind hypothesis. Supporters of Indo-Uralic often appeal to it in response to the argument that -m in 1st person and -t/s in 2nd person are cross-linguistic tendencies. I must admit I haven't looked into it.

Seems to be the case that in many South an Central American language families the 1st person has -n- and the second has -m-. In case this is because of generic relationship, that has no significance in regard to linguistic universals.

Anyway, how do you mean that English "gift" and German "Gift" are cognates? Wouldn't a German cognate to English "gift" be "Gibze" or "Gebze"?

No, why? Both come from Proto-germanic giftiz, a derivation of gebana, meaning the act of giving as well as the thing given. In Old High German it shifted its meaning to "portion" and from there to "(portion of) poison".
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 06, 2017, 02:03:38 PM
So, why do you think Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic would have to be more distantly related than Italian and Hindi? If you counted the words that started with a d in Italian and how many of them have a dictionary translation to Hindi that starts with a d, you wouldn't get a statistically significant result, would you?

I thought that "gift" was actually English "give"+"-t". So that 'v' changed to 'f' because of devoicing caused by the following 't', much like in "leave"-"left". So, I thought, since English 'v' corresponds to German 'b', and English 't' corresponds to German 'z' or 'ss', English "gift" and German "Gift" can't be real cognates.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 06, 2017, 02:53:48 PM
So, why do you think Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic would have to be more distantly related than Italian and Hindi? If you counted the words that started with a d in Italian and how many of them have a dictionary translation to Hindi that starts with a d, you wouldn't get a statistically significant result, would you?

If you take only the core vocabulary, that is, the words most likely to stem from PIE, I guess you would, because Hindi d corresponds to Italian d.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 14, 2017, 09:59:54 AM
Let's change the topic to a bit less serious one. So, what are your favourite etymologies, guys? I have got several of them, everyone laughs when I tell them, but they are most likely true. One is the Proto-Indo-European word for catfish, *skwolos (whence English "whale"), being derived from *skwel (to shine), because catfish doesn't have scales and its skin "shines". One is the Bosnian word for red, "crven", derived from the Proto-Slavic word for worm, because they used to make the red colour from worms. The last one of mine is the word "gymnasium", coming from the Greek word for "naked", "gymnos", because the Spartans used to exercise a lot in their schools, and Ancient Greeks exercised naked. Your etymology doesn't have to be mainstream, but it has to be plausible. For example, supposed radical mistranslations aren't plausible.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 18, 2017, 11:03:49 AM
Really? Nobody?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 18, 2017, 11:10:11 AM
There just aren't that many word nerds here. I love reading the conversations you guys have, tho!
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 18, 2017, 12:23:11 PM
Then watching some vlogs about linguistics, like Xidnaf, would probably be more interesting to you.

And I am also not sure how much FalseProphet really enjoys discussing technical stuff in linguistics with people like FlatAssembler.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Pezevenk on August 18, 2017, 04:32:45 PM
There just aren't that many word nerds here. I love reading the conversations you guys have, tho!

There are more word nerds here than I've met in my life.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 19, 2017, 02:50:20 AM
So, whom all on this forum do you consider a "word nerd"?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: JerkFace on August 19, 2017, 02:54:47 AM
So, whom all on this forum do you consider a "word nerd"?

Anyone who knows the proto-indo-european word for catfish is a candidate. 

Plus I never knew gym's were supposed to be naked,  that was a bit of a shock.  Last time for me I suspect.

Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 19, 2017, 09:32:15 AM
You, FalseProphet, and Flatassembler. By word nerd I mean people have at least studied some linguistics on the internet, if not in school. Y'all know some shorthand for terms that I don't know. 
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Pezevenk on August 19, 2017, 11:21:05 AM
You, FalseProphet, and Flatassembler. By word nerd I mean people have at least studied some linguistics on the internet, if not in school. Y'all know some shorthand for terms that I don't know.

3 word nerds in one place irrelevant to linguistics is way, way more than normal. I think a spacetime rift is about to happen.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 19, 2017, 12:03:47 PM
That is one of the things I love about this forum! SPACETIME RIFTS!
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Pezevenk on August 19, 2017, 12:05:54 PM
All we need is one more word nerd and the rift will be in order!
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 19, 2017, 12:46:31 PM
Then you could become one. Or, better yet, just read a few blog posts about interesting etymologies and tell us which etymology you liked the most. Later you could invite someone active on forums about linguistics to join us here, but I don't know if they would like to join a forum named "The Flat Earth Society".
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 19, 2017, 01:01:32 PM
Well, you joined!
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 19, 2017, 01:15:23 PM
Well, I assume you will be honest and not make the linguist you invite think we've actually had a huge thread discussing the Laryngeal Theory in greatest possible details, will you?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on August 19, 2017, 01:18:52 PM
OH I have an idea. You could start threads about several different linguistic theories as linguist bait.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 19, 2017, 01:28:46 PM
Or maybe we could rename this thread to "Discussing linguistics" (or something like that) and stick it. And someone who looks at the first few posts would realize that it's not about something extremely pseudoscientific. What do you think?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Pezevenk on August 19, 2017, 01:42:05 PM
Well, I recently read about the etymology of νερό (nero), which means water in Greek. In ancient Greek water was ύδωρ (hydor), so I didn't know how νερό came to be. Well it turns out that in medieval Greek fresh (as in not old and spoilt) water was called νηρόν ύδωρ (neeron hydor). Neeron came from the word nearos, which meant young or recent. So it seems like at some point they dropped the ύδωρ part for brevity purposes and νηρόν turned to νερό.

SCG, can you feel a rift forming yet?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 19, 2017, 02:16:16 PM
That's an excellent example of a common effect in linguistics, called metonymy!
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on August 21, 2017, 03:51:02 AM
Quote
Anyway, when you were discussing Indo-European grammar, you somehow assumed that Indo-Uralic hypothesis is certainly wrong, that it's absurd to say that Finnish grammar is related to the Latin grammar. Why do you think that's the case?
I personally wouldn't assume an especially close connection between Indo-European and Uralic, as most of the people who try to reconstruct and older proto-language do, but between Indo-European and Austronesian. Look at the pronouns. Most of the proto-languages have a nasal in the 1st person singular, while both Indo-European and Austronesian have a velar. In PIE, it's *egjoh2, in PAN, it's *aku. Then look at the PAN Swadesh list. Doesn't it seem to you that PIE *r corresponds to PAN *l, that PIE *s corresponds to PAN *q and that PIE *d corresponds to PAN *d?
*treys (three)-*telu (three)
*romk (hand)-*lima (hand/five)
*ser (to flow)-*qalur (to flow)
*skend (skin)-*qanic (skin)
*stembh (to walk)-*qaqay (foot)
*smew (smoke)-*qabu (ash)
*serw (to watch)-*qalayaw (day)
*bheh2s (to talk)-*baqbaq (mouth)
*dwoh1 (two)-*dusa (two)
*dyews (sky)-*daya (upwards/height/sky)
*danu (river)-*danaw (lake)
Another potential cognate on the Swadesh list might be PIE *men (to think) and PAN *nemnen (to think), by the metathesis. FalseProphet, you know a lot more than I do about Austronesian, so, what do you think?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 21, 2017, 04:20:39 AM
To me it seems more like that *s (s-mobile) was disproportionately common in the beginning of a word in PIE and that *q was disproportionately common in the beginning of a word in PAN, rather than that PIE *s actually corresponds to PAN *q. Also, you realize how much PIE and PAN were different grammatically, including the phonotactics (let's ignore the fact that their homelands were VERY far away from each other)?
To me it seems like you are a victim of the Bongo-Bongo effect, or are just trolling.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on August 21, 2017, 06:46:53 AM
ASorryx for myx current speech impediment

Flast asasasembler, give me tqwo rasndom lasnguasge fasmilieas, asnd I casn ashoqw yxou, thast theyx asre relasted.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on August 30, 2017, 03:29:15 AM
I think that FlatAssembler is falling to a trap called "The Birthday Paradox". If you choose a random person, the probability of that person having the same birthday as you do is only 1/365=0.27%. However, if you choose 20 random people, the probability of some of them sharing a birthday is not 1-((1-(1/365))20)=5.3%, as would appear at the first glance, but is actually 1-((1-(1/365))(20*20))=66.6%.
The same goes for phonemes on the Swadesh list. The probability of there being any particular apparent regular sound correspondence, like s:q or r:l, is very low. But if there are twenty phonemes, and twenty times twenty potential correspondences, you will probably find one if you search.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Copper Knickers on September 02, 2017, 06:44:24 AM
I think that FlatAssembler is falling to a trap called "The Birthday Paradox". If you choose a random person, the probability of that person having the same birthday as you do is only 1/365=0.27%. However, if you choose 20 random people, the probability of some of them sharing a birthday is not 1-((1-(1/365))20)=5.3%, as would appear at the first glance, but is actually 1-((1-(1/365))(20*20))=66.6%.

That's not quite right. The probability of at least 1 shared birthday among n people is given by
(https://i.imgur.com/sMGonA9.jpg) (ignoring leap years).
For n = 20 this works out at 0.411 or about 41%.

If you choose 23 people at random it is odds-on that at least 2 will share a birthday.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on September 03, 2017, 07:17:55 AM
Well, yes, I made some easy-to-understand statistical approximation to explain my point. Or do you think that FlatAssembler is right?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Copper Knickers on September 03, 2017, 09:19:10 AM
Well, yes, I made some easy-to-understand statistical approximation to explain my point.

Well, if you imagine your formula to be both easy-to-understand and a sufficiently accurate approximation to justify using the phrase 'is actually', then fair enough.

...is not 1-((1-(1/365))20)=5.3%, as would appear at the first glance, but is actually 1-((1-(1/365))(20*20))=66.6%.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on September 12, 2017, 10:38:29 PM
What do you guys think, would teaching linguistics in schools (not prescriptive grammar, but the actual linguistics, like the things we were discussing here) help students learn foreign languages more easily?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatEarthDenial on September 14, 2017, 09:55:37 PM
What do you guys think, would teaching linguistics in schools (not prescriptive grammar, but the actual linguistics, like the things we were discussing here) help students learn foreign languages more easily?
Linguistics is interesting, as far as I could understand what this thread was about, but I don't think many students could understand it. I've also made some topics about the language, such as this one:
‎https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66665.0
FlatAssembler is also active here? What a surprise! He is also active on the linguistforum. And my nickname on the linguistforum is LinguistSkeptic.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: LovesLinguistics on September 17, 2017, 11:53:02 AM
Well, you know, there is a lot of evidence that teaching phonology early in schools helps children learn how to spell (It's called phonics.).
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatOrRoundAgnostic on September 17, 2017, 08:57:07 PM
There is evidence that phonics helps? Teaching young children to read nonsense words helps? Think with your own head, LovesLinguistics, please.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatOrRoundAgnostic on September 17, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
So, you think we should teach linguistics at schools. Based on what I've seen, linguistics turned to guessing the grammars of some hypothetical ancient languages that probably didn't even really exist. We should teach that in school? We need free thinkers, people! And, yes, we should stick this thread, just so people know what modern science has turned into.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FalseProphet on September 18, 2017, 12:14:22 AM
So, you think we should teach linguistics at schools. Based on what I've seen, linguistics turned to guessing the grammars of some hypothetical ancient languages that probably didn't even really exist. We should teach that in school? We need free thinkers, people! And, yes, we should stick this thread, just so people know what modern science has turned into.

Are you Croatian, too?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatOrRoundAgnostic on September 18, 2017, 02:34:32 AM
No, I am from America and I, unlike LovesLinguistics, actually have the experience with phonics being taught in school.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 18, 2017, 01:08:51 PM
Are you still hooked on phonics? There's probably a 12 step program for that.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: Pezevenk on September 19, 2017, 05:39:49 AM
Absurd number of word nerds reached. Spacetime rift imminent.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatOrRoundAgnostic on September 21, 2017, 11:56:31 AM
What's absurd there?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatOrRoundAgnostic on September 23, 2017, 01:28:33 PM
Someone has just openned a thread to give examples of some actually absurd discussions:
‎https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72120.0
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on October 10, 2017, 10:48:20 AM
@FlatEarthDenial: You know, I think we were all glad when you left linguistforum.com.
@FlatOrRoundAgnostic: Please, don't post while you are on drugs!

What do you guys think about the controversy over PIE having voiceless aspirates? I think it's actually very plausible that it did have (mainstream linguistics holds that it didn't). Consider the pairs of Latin and Ancient Greek words such as "sapientia" and "sophia". Both of them mean "wisdom", and appear to be obviously related. Yet, if you assume PIE didn't have voiceless aspirates, the Latin word points to the reconstructed PIE root *seh2p, and the Ancient Greek word points to the reconstruction *soHbh. However, if you assume PIE did have voiceless aspirates, you can reconstruct the root *seh2ph, from which both the Latin and the Ancient Greek word can be derived. I wonder what you think about that?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on October 11, 2017, 10:54:46 PM
What, nobody here has thought about it except me?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on December 16, 2017, 05:53:58 AM
I've decided to try to make a web game about etymology:
http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/etymologist.html
What do you think about it? Is it worth to continue developing it?
Does my algorithm for simulating the evolution of languages produce convincing results? If not, why?
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on March 03, 2018, 12:18:49 PM
Anyway, the game has been finished for quite a while now. Feedback would be appreciated. I don't think I would be able to add anything complicated to it though. It's hard to manage the 2000 lines of macaroni code it has now.
Title: Re: Alternative to the laryngeal theory
Post by: FlatAssembler on December 26, 2018, 05:23:29 AM
In case somebody is interested, you can read about my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms here:
http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/toponyms.html
I am not planning to update it much any more. It's sort of complete, you can read about many things related to it there, such as Vulgar Latin (and why I think not so many Croatian toponyms come from Latin) and Croatian historical phonology. I've also contacted Dubravka Ivsic, who is perhaps the most prominent Croatian linguist these days, and posted her responses on that page, so that you can kind of hear both sides of the story. In case you are not that familiar with Croatian geography, I've included many links to Google Maps (I've made them be automatically generated by JavaScript, hopefully that's not illegal.), and, for those unfamiliar with Indo-European linguistics, I've included a few links to the Pokorny's etymological dictionary.