Re: HORSA vs. EXWA

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> There's nothing there to change my opinion.
>

This is your problem, not mine.

> You're wrong. PIE *is* by definition the most recent common
> ancestor of the IE languages, in so far as we can
> reconstruct it. That's what the 'Proto-' means. You may,
> if you wish, argue that the IE languages don't form a family
> with a common ancestor that separates them from the non-IE
> languages, but that doesn't change the definition of the
> term 'Proto-Indo-European'; it just means that there is no
> such thing. You'll look rather ridiculous, but that's your
> problem, not mine.
>

While I DO think the IE languages do form a family, but I don't agree
with the traditional monophyleti cmodel (if you know what this means).

> Because they *are* purely internal matters.
>
> > Only that they can't be properly explained within the
> > traditional model,
>
> So you say. I've yet to see any evidence that you're
> qualified to hold an opinion on the matter.
>

Ad hominem arguments don't appeal to me.

> >> Don't be silly. The word 'cognate' *means* that there is
> >> a genetic relationship. When you say that A and B are
> >> cognate, YOU ARE ASSERTING A GENETIC RELATIONSHIP.
>
> > This might be true for the words themselves, but not
> > necessarily for the languages involved.
>
> This is silly: loans are to be distinguished from cognates.
>

IMHO the IE words 'bear' and 'horse' aren't native but loanwords.

> > So as far as
> > the comparative method goes, there's no reconstructable
> > PIE word for 'bear' besides the one found in Germanic.
>
> And this is self-contradictory: *h2rtk^ko- *is* a PIE reconstruction.
>

Not really. At best is a "pseudo-PIE" reconstruction, due to its
phonetical inconsistence.

> It has nothing to do with 'models'; it's simply a matter of

methodology.

>
> > Then IMHO the comparative method has been incorrectly
> > applied for the IE family.
>
> I see no reason to give your opinion (which by the way is
> certainly not humble!) any weight whatsoever.
>

I think IE-ists have drawned wrong conclusions such as mistaking
comparatively late loanwords like 'horse' as true native PIE words.

> And while there are certainly exceptions, a great many
> long-rangers are methodological dunderheads; Ruhlen,
> Bengtson, and Starostin come to mind immediately.
>
> > Then I must be one of these exceptions. :-)
>
> Hardly. An amateur with delusions of intellectual grandeur is nearer

the mark.

>

This isn't only ad hominem but also a sheer INSULT.

As you're incapable of a **civilized** discussion, I'm going to ignore
you from now on. Have a nice time!