Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

On 2008-04-21 11:44, fournet.arnaud wrote:

> Not just my problem,
> A word with limited IE dialectal extension,

Not particularly limited. Apart from Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Greek,
it has an Armenian cognate as well.

> with obvious connections in
> Uralic and Kartvelian,

You must be kidding. The analysis of the inner IE material shows the
root to be *h1eg^H- with various _IE_ suffixes. You seem to suggest that
the liquids /r, l/ in the alleged Uralic and Kartvelian "connections"
have something to do with Germanic /l/ -- which, however, belongs to the
familiar derivational suffix *-elo- ~ *-ilo-. Your "obvious connections"
look entirely imaginary to me (and, I'm afraid, will look so to
everybody but their proponent).

> cannot be accepted as a clean PIE root.
> This root is clearly tainted with the suspicion it's a LW.

You say so. I don't think you can make other people see your point with
the sort of evidence you have presented.

> Do you seriously imagine that PIE can be reconstructed in complete
> ignorance
> of what languages are around IE languages ?

It can't be reconstructed in the way you approach it, where ghost
connections with miscellaneous external groups are given as much weight
as solid IE material.

Piotr