I really wonder what’s wrong with this board. 2200+ members, and only 15 (or so) regular posters. I do realize that on every board or in every e-group there are more lurkers than contributors, but this ratio 15/2200 is quite low.
- Is it because of the constant childish behaviour? Like the recent "I call you snobbish, you call me uneducated, nag nag nag" kind of thing?
- Is it because some people find it really necessary to torpedo every single interesting topic with nifty, so-called funny one liners which have nothing to do with the original post / query / piece of information? Almost always the result is a kind of "chat mode".
Is it so difficult to stay focussed?
- Is it because 90% of the messages are one liners, "jokes", silly "witticism" to show how "funny" we are? (i thought there was an IM option for this kind of unwarranted messages).
This whole group gives me the impression that it is "run" by a few people who think it’s their private playground, and every single day the feeling gets stronger.
- Is it because people who don’t seem to fit into the "group" are urged to get ignored (via im), whole others, apparantly "members" of the incrowd who are at least as obnoxious, are cuddled?
- Is it because complete off topic messages yield more reactions than the average on topic ones?
I joined this board for one major reason: this forum looked like an excellent place to exchange information about language, languages and linguistics, excellent because the topics are very diverse, not confined to one linguistic field or one language.
Seems i made a mistake.
I discovered boards similar to this one in early 2004. I’m at 800 posts or more in three of them now. OTOH, I’ve been on one of the 11? where I’m enrolled since December ‘04 and have posted once there. It’s a religious forum (I’m on two more of that kind) and I feel that the expertise there exceeds what you find in many a department of religious studies at prestigious universities. So I most of the time just don’t dare to express opinions of my own.
On one board, there’s a plethora of nutcases posting. Despite the IMO proven insanity of many of those views, several regulars post meticulously researched comments from their proven expertise. Posters include doctorate students and PhD’s and similar experts on religious studies, paleontology, oil trading, medicine and whatever conceivable. Naturally, now and then there’s the question "Why bother answering this kind of crap?" The answer will more often than not be "For the benefit of the lurkers".
I think that it’s possible that people arrive here through an interest in languages, but feel that they are not expert enough to engage in debates.
Anybody feeling addressed (or not), I’d ask you to join the discussions. Taking an analogy from another discipline, two of the most profound philosophical statements I’ve ever heard came from 1) a tiler, AFAIK lacking any higher formal education, who at a rather wet party observed me and a former GF, and, not going into details, made the comment "You can’t live the life of another person". That made me rethink my situation and do something about it. 2) I tried to be clever, and told a contractor, probably having finished no more than the compulsory some 9 years of schooling, fixing the drains of this house that "Well, this life may be distressing, but it’s better than the alternative". He calmly answered, "Well, we don’t know yet".
Some of the most world-changing theories and views wouldn’t fit into their contemporary "accepted" science, and/or were made by people who didn’t fit conventional labels.
Some knowledge of subjects discussed surely doesn’t hurt, but we should be open to new aspects - preferably argued using links and references etc., not just proposed, but I’m never the less willing to propose theories on the origins of Indo-European despite the impossibility of proving anything about it.
[quote author=Katy link=board=omni;num=1140774768;start=0#2 date=02/24/06 at 12:53:25]Frank, It’s a board to discuss language and the various ways it it used.
That’s indeed what i thought when subscribing.
Are you suggesting that the original core of posters leave?
I have no clue what or who you mean by "original core of posters". I’m only hoping that something can be done to get that ratio of 15/2200 a bit more in balance.
[quote author=Katy link=board=omni;num=1140774768;start=0#4 date=02/24/06 at 13:30:27]I’m sure you are referring to me and that I don’t get much involved with discussions of PIE or proto-Indio origins of languages, that I frequently put in one-liners and make comments on certain phrases, ask questions (Oh the gall!).
I can leave if you like. I don’t care for the current tone. I see a certain person is making up new rules for us and threatening to sue, anyway.
I don’t think i want anybody to leave, i don’t think that i’m making up new rules or "threatening to sue". Nor do i want anybody to start victimising him/herself, no matter with which intention or for whatever reason.
I think i only expressed my concern for the small amount of active posters here, and - i’m sorry - my disappointment in this board, despite the fact that some people taught me quite interesting things here.
Asking why more people don’t post… well, let’s see, the main posters of the board so far have been the only ones to respond. No surprise there.
I know and accept that this isn’t as academic or esoteric a place as a few would have liked. I also know and accept that, at times, the posting has been much less formal than many would have liked.
But I think what has kept the few of us posting who are still posting is the genuineness of those of us who continue to post. The board administrators/moderators certainly do nothing to keep the forum alive or interesting.
[quote author=anders link=board=omni;num=1140774768;start=0#1 date=02/24/06 at 07:59:16]On one board, there’s a plethora of nutcases posting. Despite the IMO proven insanity of many of those views, several regulars post meticulously researched comments from their proven expertise.
[...]
Some of the most world-changing theories and views wouldn’t fit into their contemporary "accepted" science, and/or were made by people who didn’t fit conventional labels.
I find this last part a rather romantic view. But it also poses a problem, since quite some people which can be labeled as nutcases are thinking that they’re doing ground-breaking research, while they use a variant of the second part of your quote as a shield against objections. They consider "accepted science" as a kind of evil "Empire" and themselves as a kind of intellectual Luke Skywalker. In both cases, their main arguments against "accepted science" are strawmen they erected themselves exactly because they don’t seem to have a clue what Historical Comparative Linguistics is about.
Two examples:
1. This guy claims that Turkish is the Original Language, and that all "pseudo-IE languages" are derived from Turkish by means of annagrams etc. He’s really convinced of a worldwide anti-Turkish conspiracy and he’s determined to tell "the truth".
An example of his way of thinking:
The letter "P" is a multiple identity letter, hence it is like a spy who acts in many roles as the situation demands. Thus this bogus letter does not show its true identity as it appears in Greek words. Most of the time, it represents the letter "P" in the form of "pi". However, it also represents the letter "R". Not only is capital "P" an "R" in the Greek alphabet, but in small lettering, "p" resembles the Greek symbol for letter "ro". Additionally, anagrammatizers can flip P horizantally to make a "q", or vertically to make a "b", or horizantally and vertically to make a "d". This multiple identity aspect of the symbol "P", just like most of the other letters of the Greek alphabet, is used in disguising the Turkish words and expressions that have been used in manufacturing "Greek" words. It allows the manufactured Greek words to be distanced from their actual Turkish source. This is a fact that has never been mentioned to the public anywhere.
Objection against his theories will label you as a "bogus scientist", as an Anti-Turkish racist etc.
2.
Second nutcase is the moderator of the historicallinguistics group. For him Ancient Egyptian = Ancient Hebrew = The Original and Perfect Language, God given, and 6,000 years old. Needless to say that his major source is the Bible. Objections against his theories are rewarded with the label "anti-semitic", among other ones.
To give you an indication:
<<<‘Mani’ and ‘many’ are also related to the Latin prefix ‘mani’, as in ‘manipulus’ ("company", "handful") which I believe indicates ‘of a number’. So we have English ‘man’ and ‘many’ corresponding to Korean ‘man’ and ‘mani’, respectively. I think the chance of that being purely by coincidence is none. Korean ‘man(h)’ means "is many"
[He apparantly never heard of Chinese loans in Korean, btw.]
What those two guys have in common (and i could have added examples from some Indian extremist Hindu e-groups for whom every single thing is OIT) is that they consider themeselves as original thinkers, re-defining the field of linguistics and historical-comparative linguistics, while none of them even have had a basic introduction to linguistics.
Some knowledge of subjects discussed surely doesn’t hurt, but we should be open to new aspects - preferably argued using links and references etc., not just proposed, but I’m never the less willing to propose theories on the origins of Indo-European despite the impossibility of proving anything about it.
I’m curious, both about your theories and about what you consider to be a proof.
I think that it’s possible that people arrive here through an interest in languages, but feel that they are not expert enough to engage in debates.
That is / would be a pitty. On the other hand, as far as the discussions on PIE, i don’t think we go much further than a 101 course.
[quote author=Katy link=board=omni;num=1140774768;start=0#11 date=02/26/06 at 13:00:21]Before any ‘science’ is accepted there is at least one person who has no degree in that ‘science’ Like Sgmund Freud,
Freud? A scientist? Sigmund Freud?
I’m sure all the ‘top scientists ’ of their times considered the work of these aforementioned ground-breakers to be suspect and unworthy of discussion.
Thinking outside the box seldom wins approval from those supporting the majority opinion (whether in arts & letters, hard sciences, politics or religion). Generally the outsider opinion meets with very short shrift because it defies the conventional wisdom in the given area. Those with professional reputations to maintain either ignore or ridicule the new idea, and their fans eagerly follow suit. Especially so in cultures which view the acquisition of knowledge and development of rational thinking as suspicious at best and heresy at worst.
There are notable cases of off-the-wall ideas promoted by persons with no formal training in the discipline turning out to be either correct, or prophetic for a new field of study. However, these theories gain acceptance as "reputable" members of the respective discipline discover or corroborate supporting evidence (sometimes, while attempting to disprove). Conventional wisdom and majority opinion do not necessarily validate a belief, no matter how passionately the belief is held. Albert Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
On the other hand, it doesn’t follow that every outsider opinion is an oracle of truth. Any person offering a radical idea, with the expectation that it be considered seriously, is the one responsible for providing enough plausible supporting evidence to earn a peer-review hearing. Tautological reasoning does not constitute plausible support. Carl Sagan said, "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
To address Frank’s original question: what is wrong with this board? All things have cycles. It is possible that this particular board has seen its best and is now degenerating into a querulous, opinionated and disagreeable entity: to prevent a petit mal tantrum, avoid all controversial topics, all opinions with which it can take violent exception, all ideas which it does not personally espouse. I have elderly relatives like this, and while I still love them, I prefer to love them from a distance and without engaging them in conversation! Perhaps the "active lurkers" here have a similar reaction, and so do not try to post.
I am aware of past "quality" posters who stopped participating because their lives changed and their energy is better directed elsewhere. I know of others who were fed up with all attempts at discourse being dead-ended by ill-informed, overbearing and jingoistic rebuttals from a few self-appointed experts. Whenever I see that the "last ten posts" consist entirely of this type of commentary I have a dilemma. Silence can be construed as assent, and remaining silent while someone makes wild claims goes against my grain. On the other hand, engaging an idiot in debate pretty much looks like two idiots to a third observer! I have seen promising intellectual threads die lonely deaths because those who did log on were eagerly rushing off to throw their own little gas can onto someone else’s flame war.
I don’t contribute as much as I would like to scholarly threads; while language is an area of interest to me, it is not my profession. I am not qualified to offer expert input, particularly in the fine grammatical points of other languages, although I very much enjoy learning from those who do. Adults engaging in debate do not collapse in a puddle of self-pity or lash out with red herrings when their positions are challenged, even when they are challenged agressively. The demise of this board may be a form of social darwinism, where the lowest common denominator becomes so low that it forfeits any notice from those who expect more from their fellow humans.
[quote author=Brazilian_dude link=board=omni;num=1140774768;start=0#10 date=02/26/06 at 12:41:09]Maybe not many people, unlike you, are interested in this PIE stuff.
You’re definitely right about that: not many people give a damn about it.
But i think i took IE linguistics only as an example, exactly because internet provides us with many examples of people coming up wih the most incredible BS about it, not hindered by the most basic knowledge, while they consider themselves to be "original thinkers" and frontline scientists. Defending themselves with a variant of what Anders wrote, viz. "Some of the most world-changing theories and views wouldn’t fit into their contemporary "accepted" science, and/or were made by people who didn’t fit conventional labels."
I’m sorry, i find that pathetic (not what Anders wrote, but the way those fringe and pseudo guys defend themselves with similar words).
Quite often it’s just a means to defend their religious (fundamental christian, muslim, jewish orthodox), political agenda, or a mix of both (e.g. the many Hindu-extremists).
They all have in common that they consider ‘mainstream linguistics’ as something atrophied, dogmatic, something that needs to be fought against, while they most often don’t even realise that this ‘mainstream’ stuff, has a lot of different (under)currents.
I, for one, think [PIE stuff is] crap.
I find crap something highly necessary and even interesting. But your opinion is noted, for the third time by now.
Now, could you please explain us why you think PIE is crap?
I think a lot of time is spent on things that you’ll never know whether they existed or not, simply because they are mere reconstructions. I’d rather spend my neurons on a living language and use it as a tool to understand other people and their language.
You want an example? I’ll give you an example. This is what I read a minute ago:
The oldest form of a word for "navel" that we can reconstruct for Indo-European languages is *nobh-. With the suffix -l it would become in English exactly what we find: navel. However, with metathesis, a switching of the positions of the [n] and [o], we would get *ombh-, which would turn into the first three letters of Greek omphalos "navel". In Latin the root changed slightly, giving umbilicus "navel", a word English borrowed and modified slightly for its phrase, umbilical cord, the cord attached to the navel.
Now that’s a stretch from omphalos to umbilicus, but hey! they are just so keen to prove that everything has to match.
Not quite that easily dismissed, in my opinion:
[quote author=Brazilian_dude link=board=omni;num=1140774768;start=15#18 date=02/27/06 at 08:44:37]The oldest form of a word for "navel" that we can reconstruct for Indo-European languages is *nobh-. With the suffix -l it would become in English exactly what we find: navel. However, with metathesis, a switching of the positions of the [n] and [o], we would get *ombh-, which would turn into the first three letters of Greek omphalos "navel". In Latin the root changed slightly, giving umbilicus "navel", a word English borrowed and modified slightly for its phrase, umbilical cord, the cord attached to the navel.
Now that’s a stretch from omphalos to umbilicus, but hey! they are just so keen to prove that everything has to match.
Make the reconstruction *H3Mbh, where H3 is a laryngal and M a nasal. Then you don’t need any metaheses, but all subsequent forms can be used to reconstruct my proposal (you know of course that it isn’t the other way round).
What makes the coherence of this whole family extra credible to me are two examples from Swedish: ‘Auger’, mentioned in the Am Heritage dict of IE roots (where I think you got your facts) is navare here, and ‘hub’ is nav to us.
I confess that I’m biased in favour of comparative linguistics, but I’m honestly convinced that ‘navel’ & Co. adds to the credibility of the comparative principles.
Make the reconstruction *H3Mbh, where H3 is a laryngal and M a nasal. Then you don’t need any metaheses, but all subsequent forms can be used to reconstruct my proposal (you know of course that it isn’t the other way round).
This sounds like
The letter "P" is a multiple identity letter, hence it is like a spy who acts in many roles as the situation demands. Thus this bogus letter does not show its true identity as it appears in Greek words. Most of the time, it represents the letter "P" in the form of "pi". However, it also represents the letter "R". Not only is capital "P" an "R" in the Greek alphabet, but in small lettering, "p" resembles the Greek symbol for letter "ro". Additionally, anagrammatizers can flip P horizantally to make a "q", or vertically to make a "b", or horizantally and vertically to make a "d".
At the end of the day, umbigo/ombligo/ombilico/ombilic is very different from navel/Nabel, which is very different from omphalos.
Regarding PIE, I sometimes feel the same way BD has expressed, that the speculation seems to be taken far too seriously. I, however, do not mind spinning my neurons on speculation when it is about such matters. (Speculating about people can be much more taxing.)
For example, this word navel—I couldn’t help but notice the similarity to naval, which obviously derives from navy. But whence cometh navy? Could it not be related after all? For what is a port, if not a hub (which also could be related to omphalos, no?)...? Couldn’t this "navy" be the fleet of ships for which we offer our ports?
navel
O.E. nafela, from P.Gmc. *nabalan (cf. O.N. nafli, O.Fris. navla, M.Du. navel, O.H.G. nabalo, Ger. Nabel), from PIE *(o)nobh- "navel" (cf. Skt. nabhila "navel, nave, relationship;" Avestan nafa "navel," naba-nazdishta "next of kin;" Pers. naf; O.Prus. nabis "navel;" Gk. omphalos; O.Ir. imbliu). Cf. also L. umbilicus "navel," source of Sp. ombligo and O.Fr. lombril, lit. "the navel," from l’ombril, which by dissimilation became modern Fr. nombril. "Navel" words from other roots include Lith. bamba, Skt. bimba- (also "disk, sphere"), Gk. bembix, lit. "whirlpool." O.C.S. papuku, Lith. pumpuras are originally "bud." Considered a feminine sexual center since ancient times, and still in parts of the Middle East, India, and Japan. Even in medieval Europe, it was averred that "[t]he seat of wantonness in women is the navel." [Cambridge bestiary, C.U.L. ii.4.26] Words for it in most languages have a secondary sense of "center." Meaning "center or hub of a country" is attested in Eng. from 1382. To contemplate (one’s) navel "meditate" is from 1933; hence navel-gazer (1952). Navel orange attested from 1888.
I understand navy is from Latin navis, ship. As no word for ship is reconstructed for PIE (oh, but how difficult it is to argue for non-existence of a thing), I have no clue whether naval and navel are related.
Flam,
who was at a loss whether he should not have been more impressed with navel superiority of Ms Spears.
The letter "P" is a multiple identity letter, hence it is like a spy who acts in many roles as the situation demands. Thus this bogus letter does not show its true identity as it appears in Greek words…
Make the reconstruction *H3Mbh, where H3 is a laryngal and M a nasal. Then you don’t need any metaheses, but all subsequent forms can be used to reconstruct my proposal (you know of course that it isn’t the other way round).
[quote author=Brazilian_dude link=board=omni;num=1140774768;start=15#20 date=02/27/06 at 09:59:47]At the end of the day, umbigo/ombligo/ombilico/ombilic is very different from navel/Nabel, which is very different from omphalos.
I think i understand what you mean, and presented that way, the explanation for ‘navel’ (etc.) looks quite ‘esoteric’ indeed, but only as ‘esoteric’ as a Riemann Integral.
An integral is a mathematical object that can be interpreted as an area or a generalization of area. Integrals, together with derivatives, are the fundamental objects of calculus.
I don’t understand this, i have no clue at all what this text tries to divulge. But wouldn’t it be rather odd to say that that Riemann integral formula (and hence calculus) is absolute and complete crap just because and only because i don’t know a thing about mathematics?
Frankly, i don’t see a problem with the explanation of, or rather, with the way how ‘navel’ c.s. is explained. All the sound changes proposed need to be justified, they have to fit in a larger context, they can’t be ad hoc. But the explanations given require a frame work, well, some knowledge about linguistics in general (phonology, morphology, morphophonology) and IE linguistics in particular.
While the first quote is a discussion about ‘letters’ (not sounds), very ad hoc, part of a very disparate "theory" which lacks every sense of scientificness, a terminology which is ridiculous ("bogus letters", hello?) only devised to meet with some very specific ends, namely to justify why Turkish is (thought to be) the "root language" (as proposed by the old Kemalistic linguistic traditions).
(Here one can find more ideosyncratic nonsense from the same author. I’m quite sure it doesn’t take a degree in (historical comparative) linguistics to spot the nonsensical nature of his writings.)
But Anders’ reference to largyngeals gives me an opportunity once again to talk about de Saussure, who, solely on the basis of internal reconstructions, came up with (what was later called) laryngeals. Those were indeed found back in Hittite, which got deciphered years after de Saussure got burried.
