From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60427
Date: 2008-09-27
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
>
> So you're saying that Lithuanian <arklas> must be a later formation
> (than PIE) with analogical *-tl- introduced after the *-tel-/-tl-
> instead of *-tel-/-tr- analogy developed, right? Again, I have no
> argument against that.
> AJ
============
It's one possibility,
Another possibility is that this word is a loan-word into Baltic.
Arnaud
======
>Now, is there a distinction between non-agricultural PIE speakers and
>agricultural IE speakers?
> AJ
======
I think PIE started to split before Agriculture or Breeding were created.
In this approach, there is no agricultural PIE speakers.
But some post-PIE speakers (In central Europe) were reached by the
agricultural expansion before the others.
Arnaud
========
> Because it
> seems that most compilations of common ancestors of words in modern
> IE languages include agricultural terms, such as verbs meaning "to
> plough (or "plow" if you prefer)", "to sow", "to mow", "to reap", and
> nouns such as "acre (i.e. "plowed field")", "scythe", "sickle", and
> whatever others (some derivatives of agricultural verbs). Are you
> saying that these are not common to all IE languages, and therefore
> do not go back to PIE? And is that why you believe PIE speakers were
> non-agricultural? I personally would need more convincing of this
> idea, since it seems almost taken for granted that agricultural terms
> are part of the core shared vocabulary that argues for a common
> ancestry for the modern IE languages -- so why not PIE also? (I
> apologize if you've presented your argument before; maybe you could
> direct me to those postings, I might have overlooked them in the
> past.)
>
> AJ
>
=========
It's interesting to discuss each word one by one.
But it's quite impossible to assess these words
without some macro-comparison with the rest of the world.
What is the word for "to plough/plow" you are thinking of ?
Arnaud
===========