Basque, Etruscan and Common Sound Changes (was: Finnish KASKA)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

[>>> Brian Scott wrote:]

>>>> "if the existence of that common ancestor *could* be
>>>> demonstrated, it wouldn't matter whether Basque and
>>>> Etruscan shared phonological developments."

('Statement 2')

[>> Arnaud Fournet wrote:]

>>> I think Statement 2 is stupid.

[> Brian Scott wrote:]

>> Then in all likelihood you simply don't understand Statement
>> 2. Since it's both straightforward and rather obvious, I'm
>> at a loss to know what I might say to make it any clearer,
>> but I will try once more. The existence of a common
>> ancestor of Albanian and French has been demonstrated. The
>> fact that these two languages show very different
>> phonological developments does not affect that demonstration
>> or put that relationship in doubt.

> French is also related to Iranian and Indic.

> I think the fact that Iranian and Indic are satem
> but French is not
> matters when you want to classify PIE languages.

> Shared phonetic developments matter.

And this seems to be where the confusion comes from. Arnaud believes
that Basque and Etruscan share common developments of common ancestral
material. Brian does not believe there is sound evidence of common
ancestral material.

Without such common material, common sound changes would not appear to
be evidence of relatedness. As to the significance of common sound
changes, it may be worth pondering the case of Greek, Armenian and Indic.

Richard.