From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 51609
Date: 2008-01-20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> On 2008-01-20 15:05, fournet.arnaud wrote:
>> I compare :
>> Latin lassus to Arabic laghab "to be tired" : hence H2
>> Latin Lentis to Arabic lax "slow" : hence H1
=========
> Then you're guilty of the practice of "reaching down". Before you
> compare the Latin words with any outgroup material, their status within
> IE must be established. If IE cognates (in this case, specifically,
> Germanic *sle:p- and *le:t-) rule out *h2 and suggest *h1, then the PIE
> reconstruction has *h1, whatever the Arabic facts.
===============
I don't feel guilty at all.
We are talking about methodology.
I consider that **any** laryngeal in PIE has to be checked against
PAA data and especially against Arabic.
There is no **Before**.
I could answer that "you are guilty of endogamic glottogony".
But I will not.
I think "standard" PIE is hard to compare to PAA
because it is "twisted" in the first place.
I first compare and then try to understand what's wrong with PIE.
And I will not change method.
Arnaud
===========
> Latin and Balto-Slavic evidence is ambiguous;
========
All the more reason to look outside PIE.
Arnaud
==========