--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <petegray@...> wrote:
> [...] it is possible for a language to have no underlyingly
asyllabic
> endings, yet a phonetic realisation which does include asyllabic
endings.
>
> Therefore: if our phonetic reconstructions require asyllabic
endings, and
> Glen's MIE requires no asyllabic endings, there may not be such a
conflict
> between the two as it appears.
Perhaps not, but assuming it without good reason puts the whole
thing on its head. My main issue with Glen is that he is ostensibly
dismissing many, many solutions because the reasons given for a few
of them can be construed to be less than perfect, while accepting
many, many other solutions for which there are no reasons at all.
Yes, PIE could be a strange language on many points where we have no
serious information - but why just assume that it was? Conversely,
PIE does seem to be a somewhat strange language on a number of
points where we do have valid evidence, then why just assume that it
wasn't? This does not have the contours of a serious debate.
Jens