--- 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).
***R
Models are Platonic forms by nature. As facts come in, they are reassessed and subject to change. There is no such thing a absolute truth in science --you go to church, mosque or synagogue for that.
> 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.
****R Yes, that is your opinion, but opinion counts for nothing unless it is supported by undeniable facts. In this case, Brian and most linguists obviously see things according to the maxim "the apple doesn't roll far from the tree." So, all things being equal, if there is an adequate root in IE, that is the logical choice.
> > 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!