[tied] Re: Dog

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 26-01-04 14:31, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Latin canis obviously doesn't fit with *kWn.- either (loan from

the

> > Old European 'a-language'), so how would the assumption of a

proto-

> > Albanian *kan(d)- be in violation of Occam? That would not add

any

> > extra root to the ones we already have to assume.
>
> Even simpler is the derivation of <qen> from <canis> :-)
>

In this case one should bear in mind that Occam tells us how to make
small and handy theories, not how to make 'true' ones. You're just
being lazy ;-)

Torsten