From: Brian M. Scott
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott"Which pretty much tells me that either you completely
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>>> The problem is De Vaan's systematically tries to derive
>>> everything from the reconstructed "PIE" using "regular"
>>> sound correspondences, regardless of other
>> Broadly speaking, that's a feature, not a bug. In
>> particular, when such a derivation is possible without
>> unreasonable contortions, it necessarily has primacy.
>> This isn't to say that it can't be displaced if a better
>> derivation is found, but the bar for any alternative is
>> pretty high.
> I politely disagree. IMHO this approach is like trying to
> collect apples from a tree regardless of it being an
> apple-tree or not (of course, if you choose the wrong tree
> you won't collect apples at all).
> That is, you can't simply use "PIE" at will to derive aYou certainly can, if a defensible derivation is available.
> Latin word without considering 1) the productivity of the
> "root" *wed- 'water' in Latin and 2) the words 'glass' and
> 'woad' in other IE languages.
> De Vaan's etymology is also *anachronic*, because water isThis is just silly, especially coming from someone with your
> transparent but ancient glass was blueish like the blue
> dye extracted from woad.
> The combination of bad work and laziness give awfulI know that you're not capable of reliably recognizing bad