From: stlatos
Message: 67739
Date: 2011-06-11
>I am capable of evaluating his qualifications and arguments. I said that I didn't agree w his conclusions. I didn't misread anything.
> W dniu 2011-06-10 22:05, stlatos pisze:
> > which also discusses other problematic forms. I don't agree w his
> > conclusions, but I do think Lietuvà leitis are related (and << PIE *
> > Leyt.ú+ 'low / deep > lowland / depth / water'), so I'm not convinced
> > that it's a "simple story".
>
> It's as simple as any story concerning stress, accent and vocalism in
> Baltic can be. Of course there are the usual debatable points, unclear
> cases and potential counterexamples to be discussed and explained, but
> Endzelin's Law (as it is called) is a fairly solid construct based on
> securely established IE etymologies. If it is "accepted", it is not
> without a reason. As regards problems of Lithuanian etymology, I would
> recommend standard scholarship on Baltic historical linguistic as
> introductory reading. Baranauskas in a historian, not a linguist; his
> linguistic knowledge is very shallow and his argumentation may be naive
> and hard to follow. However, if you think he questions Endzelin's Law in
> order to save his favourite etymology, you simply misread him.
>