From: tgpedersen
Message: 30328
Date: 2004-01-30
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:45:14 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>much
> wrote:
>
> >> Which means that there are no grounds for saying that *k "occurs
> >> only in
> >> loans into PIE from Old European".
> >>
> >
> >You must have better arguments than this? I don't think there's
> >doubt thatIE
> >
> >1) Old European existed.
>
> Actually I do have some doubts. There is no doubt that additional
> dialects existed besides the well known ones (Germanic, Celtic,Phrygian,
> Balto-Slavic, etc.) and the less known ones (Dacian, Thracian,
> etc.). There may have been dozens of "Old European" dialects, nowlost
> forever. I doubt there was a single "Old European" language.Krahe and Kuhn have argued that there was a relatively uniform
>over
> >2) It has no direct descendants, therefore
> >2a) Other IE languages took over its territory
>
> "They have no direct descendants, therefore other IE languages took
> their territories".it
>
> >Question: If one language takes over the territory of another, is
> >likely that it takes over absolutely no loanwords from thatlanguage?
> >ko, for
> >Nah.
> >
> >And from there one might begin to speculate what such loans might
> >look like etc.
>
> The point is that *k, and *a, occur in PIE itself. The suffix *-(i)
> instance, or the verb *kap- (c.q. *ghabh-) are Proto-Indo-European. These
> items can hardly have been borrowed from one of PIE's own daughterNot so. You conclude (with everyone else, of course), that since
> languages, no matter how undocumented it is.
>