Re: Five questions about H. Rix et al.'s _LIV_

At 7:30:04 AM on Friday, August 27, 2010, G&P wrote:

> Responding to questions that are reprinted below:

> 1) and 2) I guess we have to assume that their data is
> correct.

> 3) We don't have to accept their conclusion. LIV suggests
> a PIE origin for the attested forms in 1) and 2), but LIV
> doesn't suggest a PIE origin for other forms that also
> exist in individual languages. This is shorthand for a
> process of intellectual enquire that the article has
> ignored. Some attested forms are highly unlikely to be
> from PIE roots, while others fit common patterns so
> closely that a PIE origin is possible or probable. Some
> PIE roots based on a single language are in fact related
> to a widely attested noun. The article doesn't mention
> that, either. It's a sneaky, deceptive, and unscholarly
> article.

Those who have not encountered her work before might be
interested in Ante Aikio's brief but politely savage review
of her book _The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths, and
Statistics_ on LINGUIST List back in 2003:

<http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-1963.html>

Brian