> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@>
> > Actually, many of the methodological objections to the idea
> > that they're cognate are also damaging to the idea that
> > they're loans:
> >
> > * unconvincing semantics;
> > * absurdly generous criteria for phonological matches;
> > * the fact that he ignores time depth.
> Applying the above objections to the idea is a categorial mistake,
> they must apply to the individual members of the individual
proposed
> sets (at least wrt the first two, I'm not sure what the third
> means?). Thus they can be used to reject individual members of
sets
> or individual sets of cognates, not the theory. If you have such
> objections for eg. the "aqua" set, let's hear them.
>
>
> Torsten
>
I agree with Torsten here. The validity of an idea ('there are words
common to different language branches') couldn't be 'directly'
linked to each trial that can succeed or not of (made by some
persons).
A demonstration regarding a "non-possibility" 'usually
demonstrates' that impossibility taken into account ANY possible
case (either on a direct or based on some indirect constructions:
like 'we assert that there is such a case and we will construct a
contradiction based on this assumption' (this is one of the standard
methods used 'in this area').
Of course 'the reserves'/'objections' are welcome too (even they
cannot conclude on that topic) , because on the other hand the
peoples that support 'that possibility' (like Torsten here) should
address these objections too.
But is true, that is more simple for them, because if they can
demonstrate a single word ...the door is open.
Marius
P>S> I have also the impression that at least 20-30% percent of the
IE 'common words' are borrowings among different IE languages (it's
true some of them at some very earlier stages)