Re: Catastrophism and syllable structure (was Re: subconscious sound preferences)
|From:||Tom Wier <artabanos@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 30, 1998, 0:09|
Andrew Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Tom Wier wrote:
> > I don't doubt it, but considering where a lot of theories like these
> > have come from, what with Soviet ideology always having historically =been
> > a legitimate reason to discount theories in Russia, you can see how I
> > responded how I did.
> I'm reading _Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans_ by Gamkrelidze and
> Ivanov at the moment. (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 80=)
> While it's a great resource to mine for IE con-cultures I am wondering =how
> close to the fringe some of their interpretations come. Would anyone c=are
> to pass judgement or summerize commentary on this title?
Well, as usual with such things, it really depends on who you're talking =
In general, I would say that most IEists would consider Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov's claims that IE actually had a whole series of glottalized conson=
to be certainly very controversial, but according to those whom I've spok=
to (including my professor Mark Southern who's something of an expert in
the field), their ideas don't sound as wacky as they did, say, ten years =
The establishment is moving in their direction, apparently.
I'm not an expert in the field, but from what I've read about it, I think=
have sympathies for their position if I am not willing to declare my supp=
for it outright.
(In case you're interested, here are some good sites about their work:
Something they published in _Scientific American_ about the IE Urheimat:
One I posted on this list just recently about the Glottalic hypothesis:
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: Deuterotom
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
"S=F4=F0 is gecy=FEed / =FE=E6t mihtig God manna
cynes / w=EAold w=EEde-ferh=F0."
_Beowulf_, ll. 700-702