On 05-02-11 11:47, willemvermeer wrote:
> I find the results of all this extremely depressing. Laryngeal theory
> was formulated in the seventies of the nineteenth century. How many
> generations were needed before it was taken seriously by a majority
> of members of the profession? What real science can claim such a
> dismal record?
I find this overly pessimistic. When did everybody start to take
Copernicus seriously? How many decades did it take for Darwin's theory
to "sink in"? Laryngeal theory was accepted quite enthusiastically by
many IEists as soon as it was elegantly confirmed by previously unknown
evidence. That's normal in all science. I, for one, wouldn't blame the
historical linguists of ca. 1900 for their reluctance to accept the
results of an exercise in internal reconstruction as a valid part of the
orthodox model based predominantly on comparative data. If Hittite had
been deciphered earlier... -- but it wasn't. It's also normal for some
staunch old-timers to resist any scholarly novelty even it's fifty-plus
years old. But who cares?
Piotr