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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <magwich78@...> wrote:

>
> --- 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. :)
>

You're not. I was saying I had not been specific about the nature of
that Austronesian influence (But now I discover that there might be
overland trails for an 'agricultural package, so both groups might
be recipients).

> > >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?

How's that?

> > > 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.

The answer is yes, of course.

>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.

If a common origin of agriculture leads to a package of morphemes
related to agriculture and its associated religious view of the
world appearing in PIE the question is within the scope of Cybalist,
I'd say.


Torsten