Re: HORSA vs. EXWA

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

>
> > While now I regard 'bear' as a genuine (i.e. native IE)
> > word, IMHO 'horse' is a late loanword designating the
> > domesticated horses of the Pontic-Caspian Steppes.
>
> It's as reconstructible in PIE as the 'bear' word. You have
> no linguistically principled grounds for admitting one and
> not the other.
>

Being reconstructible for a late PIE stage doesn't make it a genuine
(i.e. inherited) word in the sense I attribute to this concept. Relative
chronology and external data are too often ignored by IE-ists.

> > Then you should refute my arguments
>
> You've hardly made any. As a general rule you merely offer
> outlandish 'cognates', often in non-existent families (e.g.,
> Vasco-Caucasian).
>

Using your own words, I don't think you're properly qualified to judge
that.

> > In short, I think the current PIE model is an
> > over-simplification of reality, collapsing several
> > diachronic and diatopic linguistic varieties. It's
> > inadequate to explain the deep linguistic prehistory
> > (Mesolithic and beyond) and the relationships between IE
> > and other families.
>
> Fancy that. Oddly enough, Latin is inadequate to explain
> the deep linguistic prehistory and the relationships between
> Romance and other families.
>

But unlike "PIE", Latin is **real** attested language, so your example
isn't valid.

I'm sorry, but I find a waste of time to continue this dicussion.