From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57198
Date: 2008-04-13
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> Arnaud made essentially the same observation back in
> September (with the same evidence that he's just mentioned
> in response to you) and was rather comprehensively refuted
> by Piotr in
> <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/49948>.
>
> Brian
>
=================
We probably do not have the same definition of "a comprehensive refutation".
Anatolian is "possibly an indo-iranian LW" (according to Piotr)
Which sounds obvious as Indo-Iranians clearly have learned Anatolians how to
use horses.
Cf. Kikkuli.
Greek is "slightly aberrant" (according to Piotr)
And a Tocharian LW according to me.
Indo-iranian works only if we accept the fancy that kw and k+w are not the
same.
A notion that circularly refers to reconstructoids that are dubious.
The only forms that work good are Celtic, Italic, Tocharian and Germanic.
The rest requires repair patches.
I maintain this reconstructoid Hekwos is bad.
and the notion that my point of view is "rather comprehensively refuted" is
incantation.
Arnaud
=========