From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 68663
Date: 2012-02-29
> They are loans because there were substrates, but these substrates
> have disappeared and their traces are precisely these loans. Don't You
> find it circular?
> Anyway, circular or not, You can of course defend them
> passionately, but please don't treat IE etymologies with different
> criteria. If IE etymologies are correct (I don't say: true; we never
> know what's true and what's not), they can never be of less value than
> any other etymology
>
> 2012/2/29, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> As I said before, it's extremely unlikle, if not possibiliy, that
>> ALL
>>> >> the reconstructed "PIE" roots could belong to a single
>> protolanguage.
>>> >
>>> > Quantify 'ALL'. For example, it is seriously suggested that a lot
>> of the
>>> > roots in Pokorny are just coincidences or later or parallel loans.
>> If one
>>> > aims to list all PIE roots, one will list a lot of non-existent
>> roots.
>>>
>>> If a root is actually a coincidence, then we have even more than
>> one root.
>>> If a root is a loan, it would be fair to detect the donor language
>>> (= 1 find attestations of those very word in one or more non-IE
>>> languages, and 2 make it more probable that the direction of the loan
>>> has been from non-IE to IE and not vice versa), otherwise the loan
>>> hypothesis is weaker than the hereditary one
>>>
>> Unfortunately, in most cases the source language can't be identified
>> because it has become extinct. In fact, most languages have long
>> disappeared without being attested in writing, but I'm sure a part of
>> them have survived in the form of loanword to other languages. IMHO
>> substrate languages are the lumpenproletariat of historical linguistics,
>> for the most part being neglected.
>> have been much neglected
>>
>>
>>
>