From: snopes%club33@stlth.enet.dec.com (snopes)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Eskimo words for 'snow'
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:50:27 GMT
Organization: Just put everything on the floor; I can find it.


In article <yq5pbq4b@csv.warwick.ac.uk>, 
  csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes...

>Yes, you did. One linguist, or somesuch meaningless title, who claims that
>there are only two eskimo words for snow, because there are only two roots.

Uh-huh.  "Linguist" is a meaningless title, especially when applied to people
who don't agree with you.  I guess the ultimate authority in this matter should
be people like you, people so eminent in the field of language as to have 
earned the exalted title of "layman".

You obviously haven't even read the article in question (not that that would 
stop you for a second from criticizing it) because:

  a)  The author makes a point of *not* specifying how many words for snow
      are to be found in Eskimo languages.  Nowhere in the article does he
      claim there are only two words.

  b)  The question of the number of roots for snow comprises only a very
      small part of his arguments.

  c)  This viewpoint is not the crackpot view of a lone, crazed linguist.
      One glance at the bibliography at the article's end provides
      information about several other similarly-themed articles by 
      different linguists.

If these linguists' views are so off-base that even amateurs can puncture them,
it should be no problem to find refuting articles by "real" linguists.  I
invite you to cite one. 

>One problem: that's like saying cat, catapult, catastrophe and catch all mean
>the same thing because they have the same root: cat. That's bullsh*t 

Again, the actual number of roots has little or nothing to do with it.  Saying
that eskimos have 723 different words for snow is like saying that speakers of
English have dozens (or hundreds or any other suitably large number) of words 
for "water": ocean, lake, sea, river, stream, brook, pond, pool, puddle, 
rivulet, estuary, lagoon, bayou, tributary, rain, drizzle, mist, moisture, 
tears, saliva, perspiration, etc.  If that's your standard, there's nothing
particularly noteworthy (in a linguistic sense) about it.

>(I claim the OED as my source, before you ask ;-> ).

The OED?  The Oxford ENGLISH Dictionary?  Good source for information about
words in eskimo languages. I must admit.

>As for your problem with my phrasing of the dig, you tell me how "please
>provide credible evidence to support your claim" different from "well
>that's what you say?" It's the same statement dressed up in pretty words.

By your standards, then, all refutations, denials, or expressions of disbelief
are equivalent, so there's nothing to distinguish mine from anyone else's.  As 
I said before, your remark was patently disingenuous unless also directed at 
every single poster in this newsgroup.

 - snopes

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "In December 1942, Charlie Chaplin's testes, like those of every other man  |
|  on the planet, contained biological products in quantities sufficient to   |
|  impregnate every woman on the planet . . ."                                |
|                                      - Peter W. Huber, "Galileo's Revenge"  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  David P. Mikkelson   Digital Equipment Corporation   Culver City, CA  USA  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban