Re: Hercynian (again)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
<bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> 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
>

I don't think this is "PIE" in the traditional sense, because IMHO
there's no single but several "PIEs".

> 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
>

Only if you forget about language replacement, semantic shifts and so
on. I'm afraid this doesn't work.