>
> What do you expect when you use a popularization by a
> non-specialist? The reference in question is John
> McWhorter's popularization The Power of Babel: A Natural
> History of Language.
I am very sure that McWhorter translates the word as sister in law.
His explanation does not involve laws of sound change.
One would have to be quite ignorant of
> the subject or deliberately dishonest to present this as a
> representative description of comparative reconstruction.
>
> By the way, I see that you're still grossly misrepresenting
> Merlijn de Smit by quoting him out of context.
>
> Brian
Here is a Beekes quote from Smit:
"As Robert S.P. Beekes (1995: 45) puts it: "Linguistic information
offers us no basis for determining the moments of time at which the
Indo-European peoples began to inhabit the areas which would later
become the areas where they settled. Evidence for this must come
from archaeology [...]". "
And there isn't any for the (blue eyed, according to John V. Day a
disciple of J. P. Mallory) "Indo-Iranians."
But i see your point. Smit is criticising "back reconstruction" not
the comparative method used by IEL. The line between the two is very
thin. Epecially when the IEL hypothesis are taught as "history" to
millions of impressionable children.
M. Kelkar