Re: Stacking up on standard works

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

>
> > The problem is De Vaan's systematically tries to derive
> > everything from the reconstructed "PIE" using "regular"
> > sound correspondences, regardless of other considerations.
>
> Broadly speaking, that's a feature, not a bug. In
> particular, when such a derivation is possible without
> unreasonable contortions, it necessarily has primacy. This
> isn't to say that it can't be displaced if a better
> derivation is found, but the bar for any alternative is
> pretty high.
>

I politely disagree. IMHO this approach is like trying to collect apples from a tree regardless of it being an apple-tree or not (of course, if you choose the wrong tree you won't collect apples at all). That is, you can't simply use "PIE" at will to derive a Latin word without considering 1) the productivity of the "root" *wed- 'water' in Latin and 2) the words 'glass' and 'woad' in other IE languages.

De Vaan's etymology is also *anachronic*, because water is transparent but ancient glass was blueish like the blue dye extracted from woad. The combination of bad work and laziness give awful results.