From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 10192
Date: 2001-10-13
> > Life is hard, you can't be happy very long (sigh).earlier
> > As I recall, you had a derivation PAN *Sapuy > *hapuy in an
> > posting?the
> > That's the great thing about proposing loans, you get to choose
> > most convenient form available (within reasonable limits, of
> course).
--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> PAN *S was lenited and lost (via *h) in Malayo-Polynesian. Earlier
> reconstructions of PAN, before the role of the "Formosan" branches
> was sufficiently appreciated and taken into account, suffered from
a
> strong MP bias (comparable to the Sanskritic bias in early PIE
> reconstructions). Of course you can choose the most convenient one
> out of a host of forms at your disposal, but there is a high cost
> attached. If your choice is arbitrary, that invalidates your
argument
> (without formal rigour, no logical demonstration is possible). If
you
> commit yourself to a concrete choice (e.g. Proto-Malayo-
Polynesian),
> that in turn restricts the time-scale of your scenarios. PMP
emerged
> ca. 3500-3300 BC, definitely too late to provide PIE with its low
> numerals. Then, even *(h)epat- (let alone much younger forms quoted
> so freely by Manansala) would be a poor prototype for *kWetw(o)r-.
>
> Piotr
*pwat(w)- > *kwet(w), if you please. Since I tend to believe in the
Sundaland theory, Formosan does not enter into the picture. And if
you believe that dispersion from Sundaland took place because of
inundation there are several events that are possible candidates.
Where does that 3500-3300 BCE dating come from? Is it bound up with
some constant-sea-level out-of-Formosa scheme?
Torsten