Excluding Basque data (2)

[Larry Trask]

On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 ECOLING at aol.com wrote:

[LT]

>> I have proposed that obvious and recognizable sound-symbolic items, like
>> <tu> `spit', might reasonably be excluded at the outset.  But I'm not
>> wedded to this, and I don't mind if others want to include them when
>> they satisfy the other criteria.

> How about if they do not satisfy the other criteria, or some of
> them,

Then they don't go into the list.  That's what the criteria are for.

> and if the inclusion of such exceptional forms then enters
> into the determination of what are true canonical forms, and even
> what those other criteria should be, and cycles back to affect
> judgements of what forms are exceptional or not, or to what degree
> (frequency or structural), and EVEN to affect which forms are
> included in the analysis? It is indeed circular not in a bad sense,
> but should be recognized as circular.

Sorry, but I see no circularity at all.
What criteria do you propose instead of mine?

> Larry says his criteria do not have any biases (I think he believes
> they cannot, as he thinks he has formulated them), yet here he himself
> says he is excluding a form, mentioning in this paragraph only that it
> is sound-symbolic (as if that were a sufficient reason?
> I do not want to assume that, but at least here no more was given).
> I do not remember whether he gave any other reasons for
> excluding <tu>?

First, if you listen to a Basque pronouncing <tu>, you will surely
understand at once that it constitutes an imitation of the sound of
spitting, just as Basque <mu> `moo' is an imitation of a cow mooing,
<miau> is an imitation of a cat meowing, and so on.

Second, imitative words for `spit' of the general form /tu-/ are
commonplace in languages.  Note, for example, Burushaski <thu:> `spit',
and North Caucasian words of the general form /tuk'/ `spit'.

Otherwise, well, Basque <tu> is abundantly attested before 1600, so it
satisfies my date criterion.  I'm not aware that such a word exists in
Romance, but maybe somebody can tell me different.  As for distribution,
that's tricky.  The word is attested widely, but not universally.  It
will take a search -- which I haven't yet performed -- to determine just
how widely the word is recorded, and its inclusion or exclusion may
depend crucially on exactly what criteria I adopt for distribution.
It's going to be close.

> Trask refers to this:
>> ...criticizing me for selecting criteria appropriate only
>> to the task I have in mind, and not to other conceivable tasks that
>> someone else might like to pursue.

> Trask clearly believes his criteria are obviously
> appropriate to the task he has in mind.
> Others are not quite so certain that that is all his criteria do,
> believe they may do some other things as well.

Lloyd, I'm afraid I'm getting a little tired of this constant innuendo.
*What alternative criteria do you propose?*  *And how will they give
better results?*

Are you ever going to answer these questions?

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk