[tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

Nuristani is a separate group of languages, usually

> regarded as the third branch of Indo-Iranian.

I know this, I was just wondering if Dardic also goes into the
group.

> Oh, Eva, mind if I sigh? I did my best to explain clearly why

Dobrev's

> "evidence" is worthless.

I got this, of course.

What sources do you have in mind? I don't recall

> any serious hypothesis to that effect.

I think I will have to work through those sources alone before I
present them to the list anyway. Of course, I can elaborate on the
above mentioned source, if it is of any interest to you.

>
> > This phonology is not very clear on Nuristani, especially on the
> development of the l-sonance in those languages.
>
> Oh really? What "l-sonance"?

The typical development uridg. l.>iir. r. does not apply for
Nuristani.

This is an extremely naive thing to say, given

> your general lack of familiarity with those languages. And what is

it

> supposed to prove anyway?

Nothing. I am just interested in this topic.

> If he did not use a Bulgarian etymological dictionary or asked any

linguists

> for help, it was unforgivable negligence on his part

This was my own realization. I just shared it.

>
> >> For example, <kUs^ta> is certainly Slavic (< *ko~tja, cf. SCr.

kuc'a,

> Maced. kuk'a).
>
> > This could be a loan.
>
> Pause and read your comment again. _What_ could be a loan? From

where? The

> reconstruction *ko~tja for Proto-Slavic is secure,

I am genuinely interested in understanding *how* it is made secure?
Macedonians speak a dialect of Bulgarian, even today (they will
throw tomatoes at me, if they hear this, but it is an obvious fact
to anyone who is acquainted with both langauges). Serbs have been
neighbors of Bulgarians for centuries. Therefore, if you claim the
word is reconstructed in Proto-Slavic, I naturally want to know how
(unless you show there are examples in other than Southern-Slavic
languages, the logic remains a mystery to me). Of course, you are
not obliged to explain. Do it if you wish.

and the word is not

> etymologically isolated in Slavic; it definitely looks like an

inherited

> lexeme.

Inherited from what?

SCr. <-c'->, Maced. <-k'-> and Bulg. <-s^t-> (thus already in OCS)

> are independent developments of PSl. *-tj-, so Old Bulgarian can't

be the

> source from which other Slavic languages took the word.

If you mean the Slavic languages mentioned above, I do not see why
you exclude the possibility of a loan. It does not sound logical to
me.

> Vassil is a member of our list and he's perfectly able to speak

for himself.

I think he is not online right now and since he was mentioned by you
a few times with respect to my own postings, I felt an explanation
is necessary.

> A general remark: if one wishes to be taken seriously as a

respectable

> source of information, one _must_ adopt a professional approach.

This takes time.

Of course even blatant pseudoscience may ignore reality, fly in

> the face of sound methodology, and still appeal to the tabloid-

reading

> public because of its romantic sensationality, but that's not the

level we

> aspire to on Cybalist.

I will restrain myself from commenting on this.

Eva