Some Latin and Uto-Aztecan Correspondences

[_Gadianton]

I take that to mean, "I'm really getting tired of this conversation..." and you have very good reasons to be tired of it. On a whim I posted that, but I'd planned to let it go and give you a rest. You've been all too generous with your explanations over the last week. However, should you feel invigorated for battle once again a few days down the road and wish to pick that apart, I will not prevent you from doing so. Should that stand as the last of it for now, I offer it as my best prediction of what Stubbs is doing.

I also note that his publisher has said that Stubbs is preparing a response and will be submitting it to Interpreter. Should he pass peer review (cough) then perhaps we'll get some answers. Given that he's preparing a submission, maybe waiting it out to see what the master himself has to say is best.

[_Symmachus]

I take that to mean, "I'm really getting tired of this conversation..." and you have very good reasons to be tired of it. On a whim I posted that, but I'd planned to let it go and give you a rest. You've been all too generous with your explanations over the last week. However, should you feel invigorated for battle once again a few days down the road and wish to pick that apart, I will not prevent you from doing so. Should that stand as the last of it for now, I offer it as my best prediction of what Stubbs is doing.

I was more just joking than tired. But I'll try to follow you:

1. Suppose that my sound-shift rules find that tortilla and quesedilla are related to Aramaic.

All right. Tortilla and quesadilla (I assume they are proto-UA words in this scenario) may be connected to Aramaic.

2. And suppose that in proto-UA reconstruction, we had an explanation for the other three, but not these two. Sure, depending on the time of contact, United Airlines could have had the sounds available, but it's possible that it didn't. And so this gap is filled by a possibility.

So, to link proto-UA and Aramaic with these two words, we at first assert that such a link is not impossible. Many things are not impossible, so I can't argue there. But at this point we have Set A (flotilla, guerilla, armadillo, and let's add vanilla to the mix) and Set B (quesadilla and tortilla). Set A is explainable via the rule you wrote, while Set B deviates slightly from the rule. Is that right?

3. Now, suppose that 12 other gaps like this one could be filled by Aramaic, but suppose those gaps couldn't be filled by Latin or any other language we try.

Not only these tortillas and quesadillas, but sopapillas and so on are possibly Aramaic, so Set B is even more of a problem. Aramaic could work, but only if we are willing to give up Set A, right?

4. Now also, suppose that our rules could predict guerilla, which we have an explanation for, and so we've got to be consistent, and point to the possibility that "Guerilla" is really Aramaic.

5. Suppose that after filling 12 gaps, there are only two gaps left. Had there been 20 more gaps to fill, then we're a little more cautious, but with 2 gaps left, and let's say only 9 words of "collateral damage" like guerilla, then we conclude that since Aramaic solved more problems than it created, it's a very likely candidate.

I'm a little confused: are the two exceptions quesadilla and tortilla? If so, then we didn't solve the original problem, which was to link them up with Aramaic via our sound changes. Now, a sound change cannot be 12/14; it must be 14/14.

Some options come to mind:

1) discover further sound changes that explain the two exceptions.

2) claim that actually Aramaic borrowed these two words from U-A, and so let the Aramaicists sort it out.

3) claim that all words are borrowed, and since a variety of possibilities is allowable within the limits of U-A phonology, one need only show a proposal doesn't violate U-A phonology. Why bother with all of the sound changes then?

There may be other options if we get more imaginative. Why can't the gaps be filled by any other language? I mean, the rules for sound-changes suggested they were Aramaic? Why do you pick Aramaic? And which Aramaic are we talking about anyway? The language has 3,000 years of textual data to contend with manifesting in many dialects. Maybe you need a different dialect or stage of Aramaic to work with, and there is no reason you should limit your imagination by academic orthodoxies. Also, if we are like Stubbs and we have a host of languages to choose from, why not let Set A work and make Set B work by rewriting the rules so that you can use Latin, or Hungarian for that matter? Or pick his grand solution in combination with all of this: an intermediary unattested language between Aramaic and Set B, and then another intermediary between Aramaic and Set A. So in Aramaic, all these -illa/-illo words were part of the language, but that language, when mixed with Hungarian and Latin, fractured into two dialects, Gadiantic A and Gadiantic B. Set A descends, obviously from Gadiantic A, and Set B from Gadiantic B. Therefore:

1) your rule gets maintained, which proves that
2) Set A is related to Aramaic
3) Set B is related to Aramaic

You win!

[_Gadianton]

Professor,

Up to point 3, you were following me, at the point of "12 others..." I failed to be clear, but it hardly matters because I missed the target from the very beginning. your point, " Now, a sound change cannot be 12/14; it must be 14/14" (even though it was really 3/5) left a mortal wound.

I'd like to blame the wine I'd enjoyed but either way, I really thought I caught a glimpse of a way they could conceivably make their case by consistencies alone, and I'm not coming up with a way tonight to salvage the example but if it comes to me, I'll give it a go.

I guess I'll cross my fingers that Stubbs' submission to Interpreter will pass peer review.