Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

19-06-03 13:08, fortuna11111 wrote:

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

As a linguists, I don't give a damn whether A and B are _classified_ as
separate languages or not according to arbitrary criteria. A dialect is
as good as a language.

> > The more variety, the longer we'll be paid for doing linguistics
> :-).
>
> This sounds encouraging :-)

OK, so here's to diversity!

>
>
> > 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?

The central and eastern part of Serbo-Crotian territory (the criterion
is the form of the pronoun 'what': <s^to> as opposed to <c^a> or <kaj>).
But the cluster /s^t/ is found everywhere in Serbo-Croatian and there's
nothing foreign or unfamiliar about it.

>
> > 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).

Extraordinary claims require terribly good evidence. I hope Miguel and I
have between us given you a sufficient explanation of why the regular
derivation of <kUs^ta> from *ko~tja is preferable to any "exotic"
solution. Any competing etymology had better be well-substantiated.

>
> 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?

Don't tell anybody, but I think he's COMPLETELY wrong.

Piotr