I asked:
>>Using extra-IE evidence as the core of your evidence is foolish.
>>What is the evidence _within_ IE?
Miguel:
>There is some, as I said. *leikw- < *laipu- vs. *leip- <
>*laipa-/laipi-, "remain, stick to", for instance.
>
>Furthermore, sometimes that's just the way it is. There is no
>evidence for Verner's law _within_ Germanic, it requires external
>comparison with Vedic, Greek, etc. But you have to accept
>Indo-European, of course.
Oh come on. Pure speculation, not even reasonable speculation. Your
*laipu-/*laipa-/*laipi- is not based on the IE evidence at all here, just
the product of your imagination. It's not based on anything external either.
We could speculate that there is also *laipo"-, *laipu"- and *laipe- too. We
could go nuts with our imagination if we don't temper it with some cold,
hard reasoning. The final vowels you mention are not justified at all here,
nor is the *p. Just your speculation. End of story.
Miguel:
>Yes, I think there was a three way contrast. There seems to be new
>evidence from Luwian (I think), but I haven't been able to look into
>that yet.
Likely story. When you do find it, please let me know. I would suggest that
you DO look into it cuz I'd like to see this evidence.
I said:
>and yet here you are saying "...if we assume...". Your theory makes
> >nothing understandable.
Miguel:
>Discuss the data, then.
What data? There's nothing to discuss. Everything you've presented so far is
speculation, imagination and linguistic perversion. Your preIE
reconstruction is chaotic and you ignore phonemes to suit your whim, like
the *y- in *yus- for example which you snuff off unconvincingly as an
"automatic glide" in order to reconstruct... what was it again?... PreIE
*swesw?? You still have not stated a date for your "PreIE" stage. It can't
be within a couple thousand years of common IE nor even within the confines
of Nostratic, that's for sure. You have your own theory going on here and
you're alone with no credible sources to back you up. I don't think you've
even absorbed some of the more plausible references like Illych-Svitych,
Dogolpolsky or Bomhard who represent the Nostratic pantheon, so to speak :)
Surely your Rasmussen presents far more absurd ideas than Bomhard.
I can only wonder how you explain IE *swe which ALREADY HAS the *sw- sound
that is supposed to have disappeared in *(y)us- as you say. I can't imagine
why this doesn't strike you as paradoxical or why you can't empathize with
me that it understandably would sound absurd to anyone. Your use of
ergativity to explain everything is also very implausible grammatically and
annoying but you don't go into much detail there I see. I wish you would -
you'd learn something and uncover what I have.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com