Jens:
>That's a statement of rare clarity.
Then why didn't you understand it properly? Logic is about optimal
probability. That's it. We don't reconstruct theories that fly against
tendencies without damn good reason. Again, this is Occam's Razor.
I'm not interested in debating the nature of logic. It's self-evident.
>And we are to go more by preconceived ideas and not give priority
>to the evidence?
Again read the above carefully. Tendencies are not preconceived
ideas. They are statistical evidence. Therefore, I agree that we
should give priority to the evidence. The evidence shows only
satem languages with palatal velars (well, rather palatal fricatives)
but nothing shows that centum once had them or Proto-IE itself.
In fact, if we can all accept that the traditionally written *swek^s
is a Semitic loan, then why is there no palatal in the Semitic root?
Simple, because, just as it's unlikely that all numerals only contain
palatal velars, it is also unlikely that a palatal velar arose from
nothing evident in the source language. Ergo, quite emphatically
so, there is NO evidence to support palatal velars in Proto-IE and
there is even COUNTER-evidence that supports markedness.
So you want to tell me that you side with evidence, Jens? Fine.
I challenge you. We know what evidence supports me.
What evidence supports you?
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca