Re: oldest places- and watername in Scandinavia

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 61609
Date: 2008-11-14

--- On Fri, 11/14/08, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

> From: Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...>
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: oldest places- and watername in Scandinavia
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 5:41 AM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: G&P
>
> >> it's fascinating that H(2)ente "in front
> of" cannot be compared
> >> to Egyptien H._nt_
> >> A.
>
> >Links outside PIE are firstly so unproved, and secondly
> projected across
> >such a huge period of time, that I would hesitate to
> use any as the basis
> >for a restructuring of what can be shown within PIE.
> >P.
> ==========
> If proving a relationship requires a _previous_
> restructuring of PIE
> modelization,
> then nothing can happen with your approach.
> A.
> ========
>
> > I agree that links, and correspondences, and common
> patterns are highly
> > suggestive, but it remains a great disappointment to
> me that neither I-S's
> > attempt, nor Bomhard's (in either of its two
> versions)
> > actually works.
> > P.
> ==========
>
> What do you mean ?
> Not everything is bad.
> I think the issue is more that many of the alleged nuggets
> are in fact
> stones.
> It needs a new phase of sorting out.
>
> A.
>
> =========
>
> > So in my never-humble opinion, what we can prove about
> PIE must be proved
> > from PIE.
> > Peter
>
> ============
>
> I don't think we can "prove" anything.
> We can create a modelization of data that achieves a
> certain level of
> coherence.
> My point of view about PIE current modelization is that
> it's growing
> increasingly abstruse and the chains of hypothesises
> underlying most
> reconstructions are increasingly long and unclear (and
> sometimes circular).
> Don't tell me I'm just an idiot, I think the
> problem is deeper than that.
> It's intriguing to see that most people in that field
> are digging for
> increasingly small gold nuggets.
> And there is no real questioning about the foundations of
> the current
> modelization of PIE.
> The laryngeals date back 1870, the e/o ablaut about the
> same.
> The root theory is Benveniste in the 1930ies.
> There's a sharp contrast between macro-comparative
> studies that look highly
> tumultuous and IE studies that are monastery-silent.
> This may be misleading.
> The monolithism of IE studies is more disquieting than
> reassuring.
> Most scientific fields have competing theories.
>
> A.
>
> ========
Well, first, you can't compare IE and Egyptian, unless you're suggesting a loan word from one to the other.
What is the AA form?
Are there other viable comparisons using the same sound correspondences?