Re[4]: [tied] Re: Brugmann's Law

At 4:40:49 PM on Sunday, January 20, 2008, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott


>> 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.

> I don't *favor* (your word) PAA evidence I *check* (my
> word) PIE reconstructions.

In the example in question, you dismissed IE-internal
evidence in favor of evidence from Arabic. In other words,
you favored the Arabic evidence over the IE evidence.

[...]

> I think my "bottom-up" and "top-down" methodology is
> neither unsound nor erroneous.
> And it works !

That is clearly a matter of opinion.

Brian