Re[4]: [tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

At 5:44:31 AM on Monday, April 21, 2008, fournet.arnaud wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>>>>> Nord-Caucasique zGar(-bi) "hérisson" (-bi est la marque
>>>>> du pluriel)
>>>>> Ce mot est emprunté dans plusieurs langues :
>>>>> - Finno-ougrien *s&jal "hérisson" (< *zaGar) [schwa
>>>>> repl .by '&' - JRW]
>>>>> - Allemand Igel "hérisson"

>>>>The latter goes back to PIE *h1eg^hi-.

>>> I deny any existence to this supposed PIE root.

>> That's your problem. It has reflexes in Gk., Gmc., and
>> B-S.

> Not just my problem,

> A word with limited IE dialectal extension,

Not bad, actually, for such an uncommon word.

> with obvious connections in Uralic and Kartvelian,

Here, as is so often the case, your 'obvious connections'
are nothing of the kind. In general most of your non-IE are
figments of your imagination.

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

Only to you.

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

*Complete* ignorance? No. But I know damn' well that
relying on grab-bags of non-IE material that *might* be
look-alikes if you have severe astigmatism, a raging
hangover, and cataracts won't do the job, especially when
you simultaneously ignore IE-internal evidence.

Brian