“Basing Grand Conclusions On Extremely Limited Evidence.”

"Of the lexical items discussed by Professor Darden, only horse, yoke,
bovine, and most crucially wool (wheel is conspicuously absent from
this list) clearly meet both criteria (for the validity of
reconstructed PIE vocabulary). The word for harness pole is somewhat
less secure due to uncertainties about its morphology. Hittite hissa
matches Sanskrit isa- (the few Hittite spelling with e have no
probative value), but their relationship to Avestan aesa and Greek
oi** is anything but clear. The status of the verb to harness must be
regarded as quite uncertain (a *ye/ o-present would be a trivial
innovation in both Indic and Anatolian).

The limitations on Professor Darden's approach lie in the available
data. The number of usable vocabulary items from the "secondary
products revolution" will be limited in the first place. When we then
add the two strict but necessary linguistic requirements cited above,
we are inevitable going to restrict the usable data set to a very few
items. We are then likely to be left in the uncomfortable situation
of basing grand conclusions on extremely limited evidence (Melchert
2001, p. 235, first two parentheses added)."

Melchert, Craig (2001), "Critical Response to the Last Four Papers, "
in Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Language Family, Robert
Drews (ed.), Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Number 38.

M. Kelkar