Me:
> You follow no consistent methodology.
Mate:
> Of course, only your methodology is the right
> one...
Now that's the spirit. Logic is fun and everybody
will eventually assimilated in time... or killed! :)
> IE is hardly what you would call a "normal",
> "logical" language.
No, which is why that it must now conform to known
language universals. In this statement, you're
mixing two different concepts. The first is
'linguistic normals' (or universals) which very much
exist. The second is 'a language without exceptions
to rules' which does not exist because humans are
by nature logically imperfect.
> There are quite a few rarities and oddities in IE,
> so another one is hardly surprising.
"So let's have an oddball IE party?" Is that what
you're saying? I don't think so. When you add the
screwy *k^-*k distribution with the absence of *b
and the implausibility of a contrast of *t-d-dH
without **tH, you get a very baaaaad theory.
We don't toss the data out; we update the theory.
> And I don't beieve that *k´ > *c´ [...] was a
> common development in all "satem" lgs.
What you "beieve" is irrelevant, hehe :) The facts
are there.
Mate goes on:
> [...] and that this isogloss cut the Anatolian
> branch into two parts.
Why not? Do you not understand how dialectology
works? This process happens all the time. Languages
don't fragment like tree branches. They're affected
by neighbouring dialects. Many historically different
dialects or languages can end up adopting the same
feature over time if they are side-by-side. This
happens! It's proven! What more can one say?
> Neither is *q. But *k' can be reconstructed on the
> basis of its reflections while *q cannot.
Um, sweetie. There is no direct attestion of *k^
either. Why do you insist on this double standard?
> None, but no lgs have *gWH either and it's not
> difficult to reconstruct it.
That's because *gH doesn't exist as it is. It's
not "aspirate" like the traditionalists are saying
and this causes even more confusion.
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com