Re: Proper methodology (was: RE: [tied] Re: Mother of all IE langua

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>
> It's the same principle at work as I posit for the PIE plural/dual forms:
>
> 1. *mu-áti > *wéy   < acc. (less commonly *més < nom.)
>    *mu-íki > *wéh1  < acc. (no evidence for **móh3)
>
> 2. *tu-átu > *yús   < nom. (less commonly *swéy < acc.)
>    *tu-íku > *yúh3  < nom. (no evidence for **swéh1)

I completely fail to see by what discovery procedure one gets from IE
*wéy, *yús to pre-PIE *mu-áti, *tu-átu, and from IE *wéh1, *yúh3 to
pre-PIE *mu-íki, *tu-íku. I see no way of retrieving such a system from
any traces left in IE. As I have shown the IE system may be analysed in a
much simpler and more consistent way.

You may have your reasons to posit your original system, but the reasons
appear to be alien to Indo-European. Am I right?

Jens