Re: Why do Pokorny's roots for water have an "a" in front?

From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 70558
Date: 2012-12-11

Then be satisfied with invented substrates and the Far West Model of
PIE. It seems that You all consider Glottochronology a better attested
fact than plain etymological method. What's incredible to me is that
You all practically hate PIE: it has above all to be restricted,
limited, short-lived, with the smallest amount of words and phonemes,
while invented substrates flourish undemonstrated... You all really
prefer invented languages to reconstructed PIE

2012/12/11, Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>:
> At 7:55:12 PM on Monday, December 10, 2012,
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
>> It's apparent that reconstructable phonology has had an
>> impressive rising of its rate of change in the latest
>> millennia (at least up to the Middle Ages included).
>
> It is?
>
>> Please don't put every Continuity Theory into the same
>> slot; the extreme possibility to be taken into
>> consideration is a PIE diasystem (in fact a very
>> differentiated lexical one, just as one would expect, but
>> with extreme conservativism at *reconstructible*
>> phonological level, i.e. plosives, not liquids or
>> vibrants) encompassed a whole linguistic history from
>> Palaeolithic to Chalcolithic
>
> 'Because nothing can (still) exclude it' is insufficient
> reason to consider seriously something that is so clearly
> incompatible with what we can actually observe of linguistic
> change.
>
> Brian
>
>