The good Dr. Tuna

[H.M.Hubey]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Larry Trask wrote:
>
>
> Nope.  I mean only that I am unwilling to believe that something is true
> of Sumerian merely because Tuna has asserted it -- especially if he is
> not a specialist in Sumerian.
 
> But I am not arguing from authority.  I am merely pointing out that
> facts are facts, independently of what anybody, authoritative or not,
> thinks about them.  But an authority, by definition, is far more likely
> to know what the facts are.
 
How are both true? Tuna only points out Sumerian words as found in
scholarly journals, which presumably are written by Sumerologists or
at least read and reviewed by Sumerologists. Tuna merely lists the
Sumerian words with their meanings as told by Sumerologists. But now
you are claiming that you will not believe Tuna if he is not a Sumer
specialist which means that you will only believe authorities in
Sumerian. To me it sounds like you believe that Tuna has falsified
evidence, and also believe that only Sumerologists should make use
of Sumerian words in any journal or book.
 
 
> > 5. The simple facts are that there are simple rules in linguistics and
> > it does not take longer than a few minutes to get the hang of the basic
> > idea,
>
> Really?  You mean all of us have wasted our time in spending years
> learning our trade, when all we needed to do was to sign up for Doctor
> Hubey's Patented Ten-Minute Education in Linguistics?  Gosh.
 
Why don't you post some complex rules of historical linguistics and
let us see how long it takes to comprehend.
 
>
> OK.  Here's a problem from my field.  The four major regional variants
> of the Basque word for `ear' are as follows:
>
>         <beharri>
>         <begarri>
>         <belarri>
>         <biarri>
>
> So: what's the proto-form?  And what "simple rule" should be invoked to
> discover it?
 
I think you should try
 
1) reading what is written instead of what you think is written
2) explaining what I asked you last year on another list
 
On the other list and other lists when I ask "experts" to explain
what rules are used to construct protoforms and why they can't be
found in textbooks, I notice that there is a lot of hemming and
hawing.
 
It sounds like Truman's refrain about economist; "I wish I had
some one-handed economists". When I ask for rules on constructing
protoforms (i.e. algorithms) there is no answer. When I ask why
the field is soft and fuzzy, people like you get insulted and shout
that it is a real science.
 
Either there are rules for constructing protoforms or there aren't.
 
My original question is/was why there is no algorithm for producing
protoforms. Either what you practice is a science or it is not. If
it is magic you don't have to explain it. If it is science it should
be possible to see it in writing in some book.
 
As for the "regular sound change rule" as applied to Basque ear,
it is plainly possible to see that the algorithm is a "partial
Caesar cipher". A Caesar cipher (the easiest cipher to crack) consists
of changing every letter (sound) to another one by shifting them
by an integer n mod M. In the case of linguistics it is "partial"
because only some sounds get changed.
 
In the case above if we make the equivalence l=h=g=* we can write the
set
as  {be*arri,biarri}. Now we equate *=0=# and e=i=@ and obtain b@#rri,
where @=ei and #=l=h=g=0.
 
Now we go back to the original problem of language universals, and
whether h>g is more common than g > h etc. This is why I asked the
question of how protoforms are constructed in the first place.
 
How, if it is not clear which is more common (e.g. h>g or g>h) then
do linguists (i) choose one, AND, (ii) at the same time claim that
it is a science.
 
 
> In my experience, most amateur linguists are incompetent, and some of
> them are downright crazy.
 
I will refrain from telling you what my experience with (some)
linguists is :-) However I could easily tell everyone what I
know of your competencies as displayed already on other lists, but
I will also let that pass and let you demonstrate it on your own
the same way you demonstrated it on other lists (re: context-free
grammars vs contex-sensitive grammars, definition of language, etc).
 
All you have to do is answer the question which you have dodged for
over a year. I will repeat it:
 
How, if it is not clear which is more common (e.g. h>g or g>h) then
do linguists (i) choose one, AND, (ii) at the same time claim that
it is a science.
 
Of course, I already know the answer; just pleases me to watch
you trip over yourself :-) or try to evade it, (again, and again).
 
 
>
> True, of course, but this sad observation cannot change the fact that
> working on languages you don't know is dangerous.
 
It's even more dangerous to take guesses on topics which should be
answered and answerable by mathematics.
 
 
> Mr. Hubey, are you suggesting that one need not spend years studying
> Sumerian in order to know Sumerian?
 
In order to produce a list of cognates all you need is a dictionary.
 
There are other things that will help, but since no linguist seems to
do this, it does not  matter.
 
> It is beyond my power to fix it.  All I can do is to point out errors
> when I encounter them -- which, in my case, is pretty damn often.
 
Pointing out an error is not the same thing as trying induction from
one single example and pretending that you seem to have discovered
a law.
 
 
--
Best Regards,
Mark
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hubeyh at montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material  from any computer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=