Dear cybalist members,
I have some questions relating to the article I have uploaded today -- see the announcement message at
Is it true that, as is stated in that article:
1) that 32% of the roots listed and discussed in H. Rix et al.'s _ Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben_ (LIV) are reconstructed on the basis of data drawn from *one single* branch of the IE family?
2) that 34% of the roots listed and discussed in LIV are reconstructed on the basis of data
drawn from *two* language branches only?
3) that 66% of the roots listed and discussed in LIV cannot, therefore, "be relied upon because they are reconstructed on the basis of just one or two languages / branches witnesses only"?
4) that of the remaining 34% of the roots listed and discussed in LIV, nearly half have been
reconstructed using laryngeal segments, and that only 18% of the total can, therefore, "form evidence, in principle, for genuine linguistic correlations, because their reconstruction meets the three-witnesses criterion and do not make recourse to laryngeal segments"?
5) that the number of IE linguistic laws used to reconstruct the verbal roots in LIV is, thus, higher than the number of "genuine" verbal roots as defined at point 4)?
I will greatly appreciate any comments on these five points, as well as, in general, on the article I have posted.
Thanks in advance, and best regards.