The etymologies given by Watkins are for the most part reliable (better than Pokorny's, at any rate). Of course the limited scope of the "dictionary" is a disadvantage, though it could be said that it includes far less junk than most such lists, and its concentration on roots which underlie English words introduces a serious bias (PIE is seen exclusively as Proto-English, and a lot of otherwise reconstructable material is unfairly left out). The reconstructions are, as in Pokorny, basically Brugmannian (late 19th-century in form); however, Watkins is aware of the insufficiency of such a conservative approach and gives the reader some idea what a modern reconstruction would look like by commending on "the oldest form" of individual entries (those oldest forms include laryngeals in the shape of schwas with indexes).
 
Piotr
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Verhoft
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:17 PM
Subject: [nostratic] Re: AA-IE

Dear Pjotr, Dear everybody

Pjotr wrote:
"Unfortunately, there is no really usable "PIE
dictionary" for informed amateurs; root inventories
like Pokorny's are of limited value -- they don't
reflect the current state of PIE studies, and contain
a high proportion of questionable reconstructions,
inaccuracies and patently false data. Cross-family
comparisons often draw from doubtful or outdated
sources and indiscriminately mix figments with
reliable forms. Your list is no exception, I'm
afraid."

I happen to be such an amateur, hardly informed
though, who, as you more or less implied, is getting a
bit frustrated by the lack of PIE dictionaries of
whatever kind.
Nevertheless, I came across "The American Heritage
dictionary of Indo-European Roots", compiled by
Calvert Watkins.
I wonder if you or anybody else can give a kind of
evaluation of this dictionary, keeping in mind,
though, the specific scope of the book: designed for
non-specialists, and giving IR roots for English words
only.
Any help will be highly appreciated.

Regards,


Frank Verhoft