Uniformitarianism and the Arrowwood

[Douglas G Kilday]

Steve Long (17 Jun 2001) wrote (responding to my posting of 5 Jun 2001):

>Actually, I'd rather put the onus on you [DGK] to justify the identification
>of *ebur- or *eiw- with any particular modern tree classification.  I do not
>doubt the phonology in the reconstructions.  I think that anyone who looks
>closely will find that the meanings are anywhere as stable as you contend.

>And of course this whole idea doesn't depend on the phonology.  It depends on
>the meanings of these words.  What YOU must prove is that there's no chance
>that the "yew" word would have changed if *PIE had had a yew word.  A lot of
>evidence says that the word would have changed - possibly many times in 2000+
>years.  But in the end you have no way of proving what such words meant in the
>2000+ years before ACTUAL attestation.  Because you have no direct evidence at
>all.

According to your rhetoric, all words are susceptible to frequent, random,
unknowable change. Therefore, words cannot be used to argue anything
whatsoever about linguistic or ethnographic prehistory. You have objected to
other list-members "queering the game", and your response is to throw the
whole game-board into the trash.

And when did it become incumbent upon _me_ to prove "no chance" of something
happening contrary to a scenario I have suggested? Do you hold your own
scenarios to the same absolute standard of proof?

>There's been some talk about a linguistic Uniformitarian Principle.  So let
>me invoke it right now.

>What actually happened when people gave names to trees, before modern
>scientific classifications attempts to make them uniform?

You mean things are different now? Linnaeus unwittingly changed the habits
of all subsequent speakers, even those who have never heard of Linnaeus or
binomial nomenclature? When a pre-Linnaean (such as Dioscorides) discussed a
particular taxon, it could have referred to anything, in your view? It seems
rather arbitrary and capricious to invoke the UP only to exclude its
_present_ application in the next sentence.

>Let's take the eastern US only, and pick a tree with a good practical name.
>Near the top of the list of "common names" (non-scientific names) is
>"ARROWWOOD" - kind of yew/bow tree in concept.  Maybe it means wood you'd
>make arrows from or wood that looks like arrows.  Doesn't matter.

>As a matter of the "Uniformitarian Principle" and an example of old fashion
>American "non-dysfunctionality" (ha) we should see the ARROWWOOD stand for
>one tree and one tree only.  Or we should stop expecting that the *PIE word
>for YEW would have stood for one tree for 2000+ before that word would
>actually be attested.

>The answer is... STOP expecting one prehistoric name will equal one
>prehistoric tree.  JUST take a look at how dysfunctional something as
>simple as the "arrowwood" word can get:

>[...]

>"Arrowwood" #3 (Viburnum dentatum, acerifolium, recognitum, pubescens) -
>Other Names: southern arrowwood, northern arrowwood, smooth arrowwood,
>withe-wood, downy arrowwood, viburnum, black haw, highbush cranberry,
>maple-leaved viburnum, nannyberry, sheepberry, wild raisin.

Thanks for the memories! I haven't heard about highbush cranberries since
the days when Euell Gibbons was shilling for Post Grape-nuts.

>[...]

>Check out all those tree names!!!  MAJOR dysfunction!

Not at all. What you have forgotten while gathering the woodpile is that my
example involved members of the same tribe. In modern North America, such a
community corresponds roughly to a village like "Mayberry" with its
surrounding farmland, not to the entire eastern USA. If a single village
actually exhibited such a wide variety of terms for the same tree, it would
be a major dysfunction indeed, suitable for a plot-device.

Andy: "I told you to stake out the house behind the boxwoods!"
Barney: "Those _are_ boxwoods, Andy!"
Andy: "Those are _false_ boxwoods, Barn ..."

DGK