You seem pretty dedicated to misreading me in the least charitable way. I've noticed that linguists seem to have a particular bugbear about amateurs daring to tread in their territory.
My original 'argument' was really just a list of ways in which those words that someone else had listed as definitely unrelated might be considered related to noses, to which you replied "You can't make the argument that words starting with sn- must have something to do with noses by reference to developments in the sense of a word that occurred many decades after the word was already current". note the lack of me ever saying any argument at all (and certainly nothing about 'must') when just listing words and the ways that they 'could' be considered related to noses.
You then replied to my positing that there might be mechanisms besides sn- always meaning and having meant nose-related by misreading me again "your arguments above don't speak to this point. Those are just random flights of fancy dedicated to defending a false idea. For example, snake is older than the phenomenon in question, always started with sn-, and hasn't changed relevantly in meaning." Note, in the above clarification, I did not state that snake eventually came to hold that meaning, nor do I care at all about or mention 'the phenomenon in question' as relating to other words having to hold that meaning at the same time. Your counter-argument seems, again, completely orthogonal to what I'm saying.
The idea that 'turned up your nose at' or 'look down your nose at' also would have to be phrases in use for it to be a metaphor understood also seems, to be charitable, orthogonal to the point, as certainly at some point these phrases came into existence due to a correspondence with reality without them having existed prior -- and the idea that one line of evidence is 'sufficient to explain' and therefor the other lines are invalid is... not really how explanations work, in evolutionary contexts?
However, I've still upvoted you -- I appreciate your taking the time to engage on this subject, and it is clear that it is something you both care about and have expertise in.
In the future, perhaps consider when you write down combative phrases as to whether you're really arguing with the text at hand, or if you're arguing with a bunch of other imaginary foes who you've dealt with in the past, and use the principle of charity.
If instead of assuming arguments I didn't make, you tackled them in a more hypothetical manner (if this is what you're saying, this would be problematic because, etc), you might find your blood pressure and conversations in general improve.
Either way, thank you for the enlightening discussion. I wish you the best, and a happy holiday season!
Comments
You seem pretty dedicated to misreading me in the least charitable way. I've noticed that linguists seem to have a particular bugbear about amateurs daring to tread in their territory.
My original 'argument' was really just a list of ways in which those words that someone else had listed as definitely unrelated might be considered related to noses, to which you replied "You can't make the argument that words starting with sn- must have something to do with noses by reference to developments in the sense of a word that occurred many decades after the word was already current". note the lack of me ever saying any argument at all (and certainly nothing about 'must') when just listing words and the ways that they 'could' be considered related to noses.
You then replied to my positing that there might be mechanisms besides sn- always meaning and having meant nose-related by misreading me again "your arguments above don't speak to this point. Those are just random flights of fancy dedicated to defending a false idea. For example, snake is older than the phenomenon in question, always started with sn-, and hasn't changed relevantly in meaning." Note, in the above clarification, I did not state that snake eventually came to hold that meaning, nor do I care at all about or mention 'the phenomenon in question' as relating to other words having to hold that meaning at the same time. Your counter-argument seems, again, completely orthogonal to what I'm saying.
The idea that 'turned up your nose at' or 'look down your nose at' also would have to be phrases in use for it to be a metaphor understood also seems, to be charitable, orthogonal to the point, as certainly at some point these phrases came into existence due to a correspondence with reality without them having existed prior -- and the idea that one line of evidence is 'sufficient to explain' and therefor the other lines are invalid is... not really how explanations work, in evolutionary contexts?
However, I've still upvoted you -- I appreciate your taking the time to engage on this subject, and it is clear that it is something you both care about and have expertise in.
In the future, perhaps consider when you write down combative phrases as to whether you're really arguing with the text at hand, or if you're arguing with a bunch of other imaginary foes who you've dealt with in the past, and use the principle of charity.
If instead of assuming arguments I didn't make, you tackled them in a more hypothetical manner (if this is what you're saying, this would be problematic because, etc), you might find your blood pressure and conversations in general improve.
Either way, thank you for the enlightening discussion. I wish you the best, and a happy holiday season!