>> > As I see it, the "PIE" reconstructed by IE-ists represents a laterBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> > (and certainly not a real protolanguage) within the IE family whose
>> > antiquity is Late Neolithic at the most (in some cases it's even
>> > recent), so it it can't valid for older stages.
>> "It can't be valid for older stages" AS YOU SEE IT, that'sTavi:
>> obvious. You still have given no reason for this assumption. It's just
>> Your word. Until You don't demonstrate it, it is like conceding that
>> I'm right
> On the contrary, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I'd recommendBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> you read Adrados' 3-stage IE model.
>> there's still a period of time in which only PIE hasBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> been the relevant language (and Altaic was already separated). You
>> reduce this period to a minimum; it's just Your hypothesis, not a fact
> Surely not "PIE" (which is a much modern and somewhat fictious entity)
> not several paleo-IE dialects.
> there're means of absolute dating for words relative toBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> domesticated animals and plants, technological inventions and so on.
>> You too are unable to distinguish possible loanwords from possiblyTavi:
>> inherited forms. Same flaw
> Not exactly. My model is multi-layer, i.e. I study the various lexiconBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> layers in a given language (which are consequence of language contact
> and/or replacement processes) and their external relationships.
> I stand by my Vasco-Caucasian etymology because it's consistent with theBhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> hypothesis that the Neolithic farmers who colonized Europe from the Near
> East à la Renfrew spoke language of that phylum. In the case of this
> and other VC loanwords in Celtic, I think they correspond to the
> languages spoken by people of the Megalithic Culture, who preceded
> Celtic speakers in the Altalantic fringe.