Re: Ligurian

2012/4/29, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

>> > As I see it, the "PIE" reconstructed by IE-ists represents a later
> stage
>> > (and certainly not a real protolanguage) within the IE family whose
>> > antiquity is Late Neolithic at the most (in some cases it's even
> more
>> > recent), so it it can't valid for older stages.
>>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

>> "It can't be valid for older stages" AS YOU SEE IT, that's
>> 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
>>

Tavi:

> On the contrary, the burden of proof is on you, not me. I'd recommend
> you read Adrados' 3-stage IE model.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I'm astonished by the degree of certainty with which You assume
that I have never read Adrados. Ig You so patently make such mistakes
in thinking what a present-day man like has done or not, You can
imagine the confidence You need in reconstructing Prehistory...
But above all what's marvellous is Your refusal of giving
demonstration. You believe that Your Word is Gospel. Have You noticed
how rarely You accept a real confrontation? You seem to be able only
to state what You think and to show how strong is Your conviction, but
that's all

Tavi:

>> there's still a period of time in which only PIE has
>> 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.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Do You see? "Surely", You are always so sure, like babies. I don't
dare to imagine who a person like You would have been in past
centuries

Tavi:

> there're means of absolute dating for words relative to
> domesticated animals and plants, technological inventions and so on.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Of course. Neolithic IE words belong to the Neolithic; other words
to Palaeolithic. Similarly, every language has different diachronic
lexical layers

>> You too are unable to distinguish possible loanwords from possibly
>> inherited forms. Same flaw
>>

Tavi:

> Not exactly. My model is multi-layer, i.e. I study the various lexicon
> layers in a given language (which are consequence of language contact
> and/or replacement processes) and their external relationships.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You always consider every isogloss between IE languages and
(supposedly) non-IE languages as loans (and always from non-IE to IE)
and never as genetic cognates. This is a strong model, not THE Truth

Tavi:

> I stand by my Vasco-Caucasian etymology because it's consistent with the
> 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.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
once again, You have given a splendid description of Your model.
Let's agree that it's by now completely clear, I'll continue to read
with great interest Your etymologies, well knowing the model in which
they are embedded. I pray You to stop criticizing my model and to
limit Yourself to internal critiques (in case my etymologies aren't
coherent with my own model)