Re: The personal pronouns of PIE (and other families) are loans

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Aha. Therefore I must conclude:
> > > PIE is basically an Austronesian (cybalist: howl!) or Tai-Kadai
> > > (cybalist: scream!) language relexified by an unknown language.
> > >
> > > That should keep us entertained in January. Hehehe.
> >
> > That has been your thesis this entire time.
>
> Not the Austronesian/Thai basis, unknown relexification part.

I see. It seems like you've been trying to connect IE with
Austronesian for a while now. But I could be wrong -- if so, I stand
corrected. :)

> >I would like to know how on Earth you arrived at such a conclusion.
>
> Actually I haven't arrived at _that_ conclusion yet. I posed it as
> a challenge: Sagart's argument seems sound when applied to East
> Asia. Formally, the preconditions for it apply too for the
> Austronesian/IE case. Question: is there a logical flaw here,
> because otherwise we'll have to accept it.

That rather begs the question: is there an Austronesian/IE case?

> > You are aware of the vast
> > distances both in space and time, aren't you?
>
> You are aware that the alternative is to assume the independent
> discovery of agriculture in east and west? And that the distances
> covered by agricultural expansion in East Asia and generally
> acknowledged by archaeologists and linguists are comparable?

That doesn't answer my question. To answer yours, I see nothing
wrong with assuming independent discovery of agriculture. However,
this is well beyond the scope of Cybalist. I suggest taking it to
Nostratic-L.

- Rob