"Victovaloke" (was: Re: Name of the Goths)

[David Kiltz]

On 06.08.2006, at 09:14, David Kiltz wrote:

> > Please refer for a good article on that at:
> > http://www.gandirea.ro/linguistic_history_errors.php
>
> I found the article to be only assertive of the author's amazing lack
> of understanding of comparative linguistics.

To very briefly illustrate this I would like to comment on:

> In order to exist as such, any science definitely needs laws of its  
> own, and some such laws are not in sight in linguistics.

In historical linguistics these laws are well established and have  
been for quite some time. As in every sciences, there is room for  
debate and re-thinking. The principle rule-based approach, however,  
stands.
I will not talk here about structuralism or generative grammar and so  
forth.

Take, however, the following:
> but in order to state specific laws-for any science, the phenomena  
> belonging to the peculiar field must be characterized by reg  
> ularity, repeatability, reproducibility and constancy.
>
> Since linguistic facts and phenomena do not have the above  
> features, no laws are possible to state for lingustics which thus  
> cannot become a science in the actual meaning and use of the term.
Such a statement leaves one totally buffled. Again, in comparative  
linguistics, sound-laws exist which have those very characteristics.  
Also, no language would work, if there weren't reproducible rules.
> 2.1.4    By means of calculations, science allows for anticipations  
> reality almost al ways proves true. In 1846 Le Verrier foresaw the  
> existence of the planet Neptun which is said to have been  
> discovered "at the tip of the pen", an anticipation con firmed by  
> J.G. Galle by means of the tele­scope in the same year; Dirac  
> theoretically foresaw the existence of the positron which
> CD. Anderson confirmed in 1932, etc.
>
> Such anticipations are not possible in linguistics because  
> everything takes place at random, both whithin popular lan guages,  
> those which school, mass-media, etc. did not force within the fixed  
> patterns, and the literary languages, the ones lin guists keep tight.

This last example should suffice to demonstrate the utter  
incompetence and ignorance of Mr. Gheorghe. Such anticipation is  
obviously possible. While it is true that by predicting the outcome  
of e.g. a Gothic word in, let's say, Old English one cannot be 100%  
certain when we don't have all vicissitudes of history counted in,  
the same is true for other sciences. A very nice example for  
prediction in historical comparative linguistics is Ferdinand de  
Saussure postulation of laryngeals or 'coefficients sonantiques'  
purely on the basis of the scrutiny and systematic analysis of then- 
known Indo-European languages (In: 'Mémoire sur le système primitif  
des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes, Leipzig 1879). The  
entire analysis is, of course, only possible by the assumption of  
regular correspondences. Those 'coefficients sonantiques' where later  
shown by Kurylowicz to be preserved in Hittite (an Indo-European  
language not yet known in de Saussure's day). Here we have the exact  
parallel to positing a planet not yet sighted. This *one* example is  
enough to debunk the horrendous nonsense Mr Gheorghe's article  
represents. In fact, it's only his views that are hopelessly pre- 
scientific. This is all the more shocking, since he employs the very  
subject of linguistics, language, whithout realising the basics on  
which it functions.
It goes without saying that linguistics, being also a historical and  
social science has many more aspects to itself. Many of perceived  
'irregularities' and 'unpredictabilities' have their reasons in that  
complexity. Yet, there are quite explicable. Isn't the intricacy of  
linguistics also the beauty of it ?

Thank you for enduring my effusiveness. I was really shocked by this  
(http://www.gandirea.ro/linguistic_history_errors.php) atrocious  
compilation of incomprehensible absurdity. Since Mr. Gheorghe  
seemingly (another word from the wise, he doesn't like) indulges in  
Latin quotations, this comment will end in one:
"Oh, si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses".




You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/