Re: Hercynian (again)

1) if You are positing a choice between a PIE etymon *perkwu- and
a NEC etymon *Xwy:rkKV, the PIE etymon wins, because it's
phonologically more precise (it has more 1:1 identities)

2) if You are positing a connection between PIE *perkwu- and NEC
*Xwy:rkKV, You can develop a theory of PIE-NEC genetic link

Your hypothesis of a Non-IE Mesolithic language in Europe must be
measured etymon by etymon with the theory of a PIE presence in Europe
since the Upper Palaeolithic. In fact, both theories can be compared
only through a comparison of the etymologies they propose.
For every Non-IE etymology I have a phonologically,
morphologically and lexically regular IE one, so You can at most
attain the same level, no more

2012/2/29, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
>>
>> By this and others reasons I consider the traditional PIE model as
> inadequate. This is why I replace it with a
>> multi-layer and multi-tree model. "Multi-layer" means that IE
> languages are the result of one or more
>> language replacement processes, which caused a superposition of
> lexical layers, and "multi-tree" means
>> there was more than a protolanguage these layers have originated
> from. So IMHO they weren't a single but > several PIEs.
>>
> Colloquially speaking, in many cases "native IE" would correspond to the
> more recent layer (i.e. the superstrate) found in most IE branches, that
> is, the language spoken by the Steppe people which I call "Pontic". But
> older layers have also significantly contributed to the lexicon and
> morphology of the IE family, so it isn't easy to isolate a native core
> for the whole IE family.
>
>> IMHO the root *perkW- 'oak, pine' isn't a native IE word but rather a
>> substrate borrowing (call it "Paleo-European" or whatever else), and
> its
>> similarity to the name of a thunder god in some cultures is purely
>> coincidential. There's no need to imagine implausible semantic shifts
>> and the like.
>>
> In my own model, this word would belong to a Mesolithic language spoken
> in West Europe whose lexicon has been incorporated (through language
> replacement) into IE, so it's a "substrate" only relatively. I've found
> a likely cognate in NEC *Xwy:rkKV
> <http://newstar.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/ca\
> uc/caucet&text_number=+149&root=config> 'tree, oak-tree'.
>
>
>
>
>
>