--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> I think it should be remembered that I did not introduce "random
look-alikes" as an explanation for anything though I certainly will
admit the extremely unlikely statistical possibility.
>
Patrick go ahead with some common words to sustains your position.
These examples will value more than any pro/contra theoretical
arguments regarding different models.
Finally any model is a model, and not the reality: however we know
the reality only based on these models...
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. As an example, I doubt that the speed of light is the maximum
speed in the Universe, but such a model is useful as a good
aproximation for a lot of cases. Also Isaac Newton's theory already
covered 99% of all the cases...
Taking my point of interest on this forum, I had
initially 'accepted' the model that asserts for all the Common
Romanian-Albanian words the following final conclusion: 'they are
loans in Romanian from Albanian' but next when I started to compute
their timeframes I found out that the great majority of them 'are
<at least> 'loans' older then 600 CE' and 'some of them 'are located
Before Roman Presence in Balkans ...so finally the theory above
became deprecated by itself : only by strictly applying its
principle against a set of facts.
Proceeding in a similar way you will find out sooner or later the
limits of different models regarding your points of interest...
Finally, doesn't matter how Fanatical I could be, if I accept once
that an *o never passed to an *a in Romanian : I can never say that
Romanian ochi(u) /okj(u)/ 'eye' is from PAlb/Dacian *ac^(j)u 'eye'
and not from Latin oculus
(even its great similarity okj(u) <-> *ac^ju is obvious knowing also
the transformation of ORom copac^u, melc^u > Rom copak(u), melk
(u) 'tree, snail')
On the other hand nobody can convince me that Romanian a(d)
zi 'today' is from Latin hodie 'today' (and not cognate with Skt
adyá 'today') trying to convince me to ignore the same rule...
Or: that would be more logical to derive Romanian apa 'water' from
Latin 'aqua' when the root h2ep- 'water' is presented 'everywhere'
in Skt, Baltic, Tocharian etc...and the Dacian Zaldapa is attested
too.
http://main.mnir.ro/publicat/TTW/Vol_3/v3_s2/H09_587.htm