From: Brian M. Scott
> --- In email@example.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:Then you don't know what 'ad hoc' means.
>>> All things being equal, the "laryngeal" hypothesis is
>>> also what you call an "ad-hoc assumption".
>> It's a reasoned inference from the data, and about as well
>> supported as inferences in historical sciences can get. I
>> realize that you don't know much about IE linguistics and
>> haven't a clue about supporting claims with careful
>> argumentation, but this is ridiculous even for you.
> As usual, your assumptions about what I know are *wrong*.
> In IE studies, the term "laryngeal" doesn't describe a
> specific kind of consonant, but it's rather used as a
> wildcard for several different sounds reconstructed for
> earlier stages of IE which can't be defined with enough
> accuracy within the existing framework.
> My own criticism concerns the latter point, not the
> reconstruction itself.
> That is, I see no problem in reconstructing a consonant X,So because the evidence is insufficient to pin down the
> provided it can be described with enough accuracy.