>No, it is because I'm sticking to logic. The fact that a set of nasal-initial words appears in Altaic or Kartvelian on the one hand and in a denasalized form in IE does not necessarily mean that they appear in some 'paleo-IE' dialect, since they could all have been borrowed from a now lost language, being denasalized when borrowed by PIE and not when when borrowed by Altaic and Kartvelian.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > The fact that a word appears in Altaic or Kartvelian does not mean
> that they appear in some 'paleo-IE' dialect.
> This is because you stick to the traditional PIE model, which is
> both incomplete (it doesn't explain all the IE facts) and
> > > What I meant is denasalization isn't so uncommon as you mightSo when you said 'What I meant is denasalization isn't so uncommon as you might think', you meant 'What I meant is denasalization in IE isn't so uncommon as you might'? Why didn't you say that then? But it's not. How do you explaim then that the "fog" word is denasalized only in Lithuanian, but your examples (presumably) are denasalized in many more IE languages?
> > > think.
> > Yes, that is exactly what you said, so the above is not an
> > explanation of what you said. However what I said was that it was
> > uncommon in IE. The fact that it's common elsewhere is irrelevant.
> No, there's no "elsewhere" because this is IE. And comparative
> evidence shows denasalization did happen in one of the
> paleo-dialects which make up the IE family.
> > > think.No, you don't, since you have now incorporated into your proposals my idea of adding the "fog" word to the group of words for "darkness" with initial *gn-, *dn-.
> > The supposed singular n- -> d- of Lithuanian debesÃ¬s is explained
> much better by the assumption of an original cluster *dhn- vel sim
> in the "fog" word.
> I disagree.
> > And darkness is darkness. You are the new Heidegger.That would be difficult. Like explaining logic to you.
> How would you explain a color to a born blind person?