Re: Hercynian (again)

2012/2/29, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 1) if You are positing a choice between a PIE etymon *perkwu- and
>> a NEC etymon *Xwy:rkKV, the PIE etymon wins, because it's
>> phonologically more precise (it has more 1:1 identities)
>>
>> 2) if You are positing a connection between PIE *perkwu- and NEC
>> *Xwy:rkKV, You can develop a theory of PIE-NEC genetic link
>>
> I don't think this is "PIE" in the traditional sense, because IMHO
> there's no single but several "PIEs".

——————————————————————————————————————
You have to prove their existence. Till now we have only
historical languages, they must have come from something, but You
can't prove that they don't converge - back into time - into a single
genetic lineage. If You maintain that present-day 8,000 languages
represent the result of the intermingling of 8,000 prehistorical
languages, You are making a strong hypothesis, but after all just a
simple hypothesis. We can only say: *at least* a prehistorical IE
language must have existed - if more than one, we can't really say
——————————————————————————————————————

>
>> Your hypothesis of a Non-IE Mesolithic language in Europe must be
>> measured etymon by etymon with the theory of a PIE presence in Europe
>> since the Upper Palaeolithic. In fact, both theories can be compared
>> only through a comparison of the etymologies they propose.
>> For every Non-IE etymology I have a phonologically,
>> morphologically and lexically regular IE one, so You can at most
>> attain the same level, no more
>>
> Only if you forget about language replacement, semantic shifts and so
> on. I'm afraid this doesn't work.

——————————————————————————————————————
Language replacement cannot be posited ad infinitum. There must
have been a first language in each place. That this has been PIE is a
good hypothesis; You can't dismiss it and at the same time take
another hypothesis for granted