Re: Hercynian (again)

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

>
> 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?
>

No, because loans aren't the only trace of substrates, as there's also toponymy. And quite often toponymy roots become loans (e.g. Latin aqua 'water'). In a multi-layer model I've got no problem to consider items like this as IE, although certainly not "PIE" in the traditional sense.

But there're other toponymy roots which can't considered as IE at all, e.g the ones represented by Basque naba, (> Spanish nava) 'plain (between mountains)' and Gascon gava (> French gave) 'river', whose nearest cognates are respectively Kartvelian *neb- 'palm of the hand' and *qew- 'ravine'.

> 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
>

I don't think so, but even if a given word has an IE etymology, this doesn't imply it has to have the same origin (i.e. protolanguage) than every other IE word. This is my point.