From: stlatos
Message: 65779
Date: 2010-02-03
>Did you also consider the first reply an obvious joke, since you don't believe they're related by borrowing? I ask this both to determine what I should think of your linguistic skill and personal character, and to know what to reply if you meant something else about borrowing from Baltic to Finnish.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
> > <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
> >> <liberty@> wrote:
>
> >>> The latter from P.I.E. *kan-tlom, no doubt.
>
> >> How do you explain -tele out of -tlom- ?
> >> Why should it not be kantolo or kantala !?
> >> => very strange vocalic scheme.
>
> >> 8 messages. None of them explains how kan-tlom could be
> >> become kantele.
>
> And here, ladies and gentleman, we have a fine specimen of
> homo inattentus.
>Goodness, I use established and proven methods of linguistic reconstruction (including borrowing, metathesis, and dissimilation), mostly regular rules (and those that aren't mostly optional, which is a well-established possibility in historical linguistics) and yet am subject to extreme criticism for it. I might understand criticism that specified that metathesis was unlikely for some other reason given for a particular reconstruction, but I will not accept being told that because I include metathesis that it must be wrong just for that reason. I certainly can't even take seriously criticism against a theory that ignores that the words are obviously related, like kantele and kankle:s.
> > Have you applied the Sean Whalen etymological method
> > to it?
>
> For some reason I keep wanting to read that as 'cryptological
> method'.
>
> Brian
>