Re: [tied] Re: Why did Proto-Germanic break up?

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 26668
Date: 2003-10-28

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Why did Proto-Germanic break up?

> > No, Torsten. "30%" is not OK here, there or anywhere. It just isn't
> > accurate and probably isn't even roughly correct.
> >
> Alright then. What percentage is correct then, ballpark figure?

You may do the counting and get your own figure, if it's so important to
you. Mine would be definitely lower than 30%. I suspect, however, that no
two linguists would get the same figure; there are too many borderline cases
and the same root may be classified differently by different people (all the
more reason for caution). The question is really whether the following
statement is true: "Germanic has an unusually large proportion of non-IE
roots". I don't think it's true. Germanic has got its more-or-less ordinary
share of roots that are difficult to etymologise.