Re: Greek kitharis

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>>
> > I don't agree with your definition of PW. Even if it were true,
> > and a supposed PW reconstructed correctly using sound methodology,
> > the discovery of a previously unknown language could require the
> > reconstruction of an earlier language ancestral to both it and the
> > previous group, which, by definition, would be PW (the previous rec.
> > called PW would be a sub-group of the real PW).
>
> So? The same is true mutatis mutandis of any other proto-language.

PIE would be redefined if a new IE language were discovered, not if
a non-IE were. PW would be changed by any.

>
> > By my theory, PIE isn't ancestral by definition, but by
> > happenstance.
>
> Obviously. So what?

The reconstruction of PIE isn't affected by the evidence of a non-IE
language. Therefore, PIE wouldn't be PW even if it were the ancestor
of all known l. (as I say).