>
> I don't believe in
> that *fetishist* morphology dogma.
For languages that don't have much in the way of morphology this
position would make sense. However, morphology tends to be resistant
to borrowing so when it's there it's a pretty good marker. Both PIE
and Salish have complex morphology, and they're nothing like each other.
=============
No
Mordvin moksha -ze
meaning "my" is isolated within Uralic
and obviously a borrowing from Satemic egho > -za.
French borrowed -ing
and creates new non-English words with that.
English has made a large borrowing
of Romance and Latin suffixes
That kind of premiss is just wrong.
Morphology works only when the languages are
*recent* split-aways.
Otherwise it makes *no* sense
because morphology has been renewed.
Arnaud
=================