Re: Indo-Iranian

As a linguist, I

> can only say that there are no foolproof _linguistic_ criteria of

"being

> a separate language" (rather than "dialect"). When in doubt, I

tend to

> respect the sentiments of the native speakers.

I also respect those sentiments, the comment was more on the
way those sentiments are applied to linguistics.

> The more variety, the longer we'll be paid for doing linguistics

:-).

This sounds encouraging :-)

> First, it's untrue that <s^t> is foreign to Serbo-Croatian (it even

has

> "s^tokavian" dialects! :-)).

I did not say s^t does not exist. Just the impressions of my ear -
could be wrong, of course. Btw, where are those dialects
spoken?

> Old Polish was slightly affected by OCS, but the influence was
> superficial and marginal. We've always been Romewards

oriented.

I am clear on the latter. As I have said, I would gladly learn more.

> A straightforward etymology is always preferable to an exotic

one, other

> things being equal.

One should always account for surprises. Not to mention that
what we consider straightforward changes according to
historical realities (and our awareness of them).

You know that Alex likes to reject Romance

> etymologies of lots of perfectly Romance-looking words in

Romanian, and

> he smells Thracian and Dacian influence all about the place.

Is he right

> :-)?

What do you think?

Eva