[tied] Re: Convergence in the formation of IE subgroups

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

>
>
> > "On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Adam Hyllested wrote:

...[cut]...

> > But there's something even more fundamental to consider: do the
> cited
> > forms exist at all? B and R adopt a very cavalier approach to the
> > treatment of data. Let me illustrate this with the Basque word
> cited
> > above.
> >
> > B and R cite the Basque word for `badger' as "<hazkoin>", insert a
> > morpheme boundary not justified in Basque, and unhesitatingly

gloss

> > the
> > supposed formation as `bear-dog', thus yielding them their

required

> > "<koin>" for `dog'. But most of this is fantasy.
> >
> > First, the Basque word for `badger' appears in at least seventeen
> > regional variants. B and R have no business selecting just one

of

> the
> > numerous variants merely because it suits their purposes: that is
> > unprofessional. With this shabby methodology, they could equally
> have
> > selected some other single form if that had happened to suit their
> > purposes better, such as <asku~> or <azkenarro> or even the very
> > dubious
> > hapax <akomarra>.
>
>
> If we accept Trask's argument here, nor do B and R, or any other
> linguist, have any business selecting English 'hound' over 'dog'

for

> purposes of linguistic reconstruction.

I hope Piotr will correct me if my premise is wrong, but
wasn't "hound" attested much earlier, and much more frequently in Old
English? If so, the two situations are not comparable.

Ned Smith