Re: Hercynian (again)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
<bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> >> As I said before, it's extremely unlikle, if not possibiliy, that

ALL

> >> the reconstructed "PIE" roots could belong to a single

protolanguage.

> >
> > Quantify 'ALL'. For example, it is seriously suggested that a lot

of the

> > roots in Pokorny are just coincidences or later or parallel loans.

If one

> > aims to list all PIE roots, one will list a lot of non-existent

roots.

>
> If a root is actually a coincidence, then we have even more than

one root.

> If a root is a loan, it would be fair to detect the donor language
> (= 1 find attestations of those very word in one or more non-IE
> languages, and 2 make it more probable that the direction of the loan
> has been from non-IE to IE and not vice versa), otherwise the loan
> hypothesis is weaker than the hereditary one
>

Unfortunately, in most cases the source language can't be identified
because it has become extinct. In fact, most languages have long
disappeared without being attested in writing, but I'm sure a part of
them have survived in the form of loanword to other languages. IMHO
substrate languages are the lumpenproletariat of historical linguistics,
for the most part being neglected.
have been much neglected