Fw: Re[8]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50220
Date: 2007-10-06

An interesting case of Far-off etymologies that work
is the word "tooth" : H_t? close to H_d "to eat"
close but different.
Basque : hor-tz
Australian : (h)or(r)
Patagonian : (h)orr-
Compare with Basque hel, hal.
Australian and Patagonian should be : (h)ay, (h)ey
if they kept the word H_d "to eat"
But I have no way to get enough data on these languages.
this means that PIE fused *d and *t?
Systematic reinterpretation of traditional *d as [t?] is wrong.
You cannot tell within PIE which is *d= [d] and which is *d= [t?].
Only languages outside PIE can help.
----- Original Message -----
From: fournet.arnaud
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:42 AM
Subject: Re[8]: [tied] Re: Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about what is
possible in principle. If you don't already understand why
a claim to have identified 'proto-world' cognates is prima
facie incredible -- any remaining signal is swamped by the
noise, overwhelmed by random resemblances --

============ =======

I don't believe in the pessimistic approach.

I believe it is possible.

============ =========

 or why claims
of Tibetan loanwords in OE are likely at best to be greeted
by polite silence, I doubt that anything that I can say will

============ ========= ====

You have the right to shroud yourself with disbelief

but you have proved nothing.

It might sound shocking but the fact is you have no better explanation to propose.

You don't have explanations : you have prejudices : not the same thing.

============ ========= ========