Re: [tied] Why is PIE more centum than satem?

Before you start your search for linguistic Einsteins, let me warn you that Einsteinian physics offers fewer simple answers to simple questions. In Newton's world there was an absolute space-time frame for the universe, so it always made sense to demand: "Did A occur earlier than B?". In Einstein's world you'd better come to terms with the realisation that for some pairs of events there is no yes-or-no answer. A is earlier than B in some frames of reference and later than B in others. This doesn't mean that we know less than in Newton's days. We merely have fewer illusions ;-)

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: george knysh

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:56 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Why is PIE more centum than satem?

*****GK: As I've already mentioned any number of times, all this is fine and good, very useful. But it in no way implies that nothing further can be discovered or said about the subject matter. Such a claim would, in the more extreme cases, be tantamount to the similar contentions of religion and/or ideology. "Within the parameters of our approach here is what is true and significant.." But I'd like to know more! "There is nothing more" "We can't tell you" "It's unknowable, deceptive, superficial, idle." Well in that case I know what questions I will not (or should not) be asking in that venue. I will leave the linguistic Newtons alone, and search for linguistic Einsteins.******