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

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 51665
Date: 2008-01-20

 
----- 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
 
==============