From: dgkilday57
Message: 69064
Date: 2012-03-23
>The real problem with de Vaan is his willingness to use slippery soundlaws and those (including some of Schrijver's) erected on a very slim etymological basis. The purported soundlaw *-dr- > Lat. -tr- has almost nothing but <taeter> against <taedet> behind it, and is contradicted by <quadri/u-> (which Sihler acknowledges but, true to character, does not explain).
> At 5:43:15 PM on Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Tavi wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> >>> Also some of De Vaan's etymologies, e.g. Latin vitrum
> >>> 'glass; woad' from IE *wed-ro- 'water-like' are rather
> >>> inventive, to say the least.
>
> >> It can't be all that inventive, since Sihler (223.5)
> >> accepts it. He also says that 'for the semantics there
> >> are a number of parallels'.
>
> > 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.