Re: Reconstruction (was: Grimm 's Law fact or myth: Gessman (1990))

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@>
> wrote:
> > From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@>
>
> > >Obviously there are
> > >the same methodological problems in reconstructing words as
> > >reconstructing buildings or civilizations, but in each case what
> > >you reconstruct is something which once existed, and no one is
> > >doubt of that.
>
> If only that were true. For counter-examples, see Pokorny.

If only he had dropped the semantics-less 'extensions'; the rest is
pretty decent.

> It's been suggested that all roots not attested in three branches
> should be discarded as probably being wrong.

I think instead they, along with all 'extended' roots, should be
recycled to substrate-hunters; they can usually come up with ideas for
them.


Torsten