Re: Why did Proto-Germanic break up?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> 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%.

It's not very important to me. I thought it was important to you,
based on your reaction.

>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.
>

What is the "ordinary" percentage of difficult-to-etymologise roots
in an IE language then, ballpark figure? What do think of Rick
McAllister's now defunct list of non-IE roots in Germanic?

Torsten