> *****GK: This is not a satisfactory position. After
> all people should know on what basis they have
> "reconstructed" PIE, ...
> *****GK: Surely one is not condemned here to endlessly
> wallow in the "everyone is entitled to their own
> opinion" morass?
One of the problems is uncertainty and continuing debate over fairly
fundamental issues - for example, where Celtic / Baltic / Latin show traces
of an -s- past-tense element, and Sanskrit / Greek both have an -s- formant
as a major player in an "aorist" tense, should we (a) assume that the Skt /
Greek group has innovated and built its complex present / imperfect / aorist
/ perfect verb system from originally disparate elements available in PIE,
or (b) assume that PIE had this complex system from the outset, and the Skt
/ Greek group has retained it, while the first group has simply the relics
and ruins of a once coherent system?
How do we judge such a question? There are processes we can use, and they
involve weighing up likelihoods, considering other factors, asking which
direction developments are more likely to go in, and a large number of other
factors which are not nailed firmly down, but which leave room for
individuals to disagree with one another.
For example, if some one like Szemerenyi can still suggest voiceless
aspirates for PIE, and (for heavens sake!) a single laryngeal, then you get
some idea of the variation still possible. The evidence can be explained
from a number of different "PIE's". A consensus is growing over some
elements, but not over others. The choice between them is still open to
individual disagreement.
Peter