Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Brugmann's Law

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian M. Scott

To: fournet.arnaud

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:56 PM

Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Brugmann's Law

At 10:08:52 AM on Sunday, January 20, 2008, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> 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.

Since no genetic connection between PIE and PAA has been
established, it is obviously methodologically unsound to
favor PAA evidence over PIE evidence. Relying on one
particular PAA language merely compounds the error.

Brian
================

I don't *favor* (your word) PAA evidence

I *check* (my word) PIE reconstructions.

 

Arabic is rich and well described.

And the most appropriate choice.

 

I would not compare say Irish with Berber

because both are severely eroded

But Greek against Arabic makes sense.

Both have a rather clear skelettal conservatism.

 

I believe the best PIE is achieved when

internal PIE data and reconstructions have been

checked and henceforth consolidated by

external data.

I think my "bottom-up" and "top-down" methodology

is neither unsound nor erroneous.

And it works !

 

And the fact that PAA and PIE are not "officially" cognates

is not a reason to wait for the end of times

till we start doing something.

 

Arnaud

 

==============