From: Brian M. Scott
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott"There's nothing there to change my opinion.
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>> You missed the point completely, which suggests that you
>> don't understand how comparative reconstruction works.
>>> I know perfectly how the comparative method works,
>> This is far from evident.
> See below.
>> PIE is by definition the most recent common ancestor ofYou're wrong. PIE *is* by definition the most recent common
>> the IE languages, as best we can reconstruct it.
>>> According to this definition, PIE would be closer to a
>>> Platonic ideal than to an attainable goal.
>> It's a rather basic definition.
> No, it's a HYPOTHESIS.
>>> But IMHO they can be explained as different reflexes ofSo you say. I've yet to see any evidence that you're
>>> a former sibilant affricate like the one we find in
>>> PNEC. I've simply extended the comparative method
>>> outside the IE family to help us understand what you
>>> regard as "purely internal matters".
>> Because they *are* purely internal matters.
> Only that they can't be properly explained within the
> traditional model,
> thus showing its inconsistence.This is silly: loans are to be distinguished from cognates.
>>> I also don't think we have to demonstrate a genetic
>>> relationship PRIOR to accepting cognacy, as this is
>>> utterly inconsistent. We can only posit a genetic
>>> relationship from a mass of cognates along with
>>> predictable (I prefer this term to "regular") sound
>>> correspondences, and nobody would do so with a single
>> Don't be silly. The word 'cognate' *means* that there is
>> a genetic relationship. When you say that A and B are
>> cognate, YOU ARE ASSERTING A GENETIC RELATIONSHIP.
> This might be true for the words themselves, but not
> necessarily for the languages involved.
> For phonetical reasons, I think *h2ºrtk´-o- 'bear' isAnd this is self-contradictory: *h2rtk^ko- *is* a PIE
> actually a loanword and not a native IE word. So as far as
> the comparative method goes, there's no reconstructable
> PIE word for 'bear' besides the one found in Germanic.
>> It has nothing to do with 'models'; it's simply a matterI see no reason to give your opinion (which by the way is
>> of methodology.
> Then IMHO the comparative method has been incorrectly
> applied for the IE family.
>> And while there are certainly exceptions, a great manyHardly. An amateur with delusions of intellectual grandeur
>> long-rangers are methodological dunderheads; Ruhlen,
>> Bengtson, and Starostin come to mind immediately.
> Then I must be one of these exceptions. :-)