Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
<bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> 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
>

As I said before, your model (which is a flavour of the so-called PCT)
relies on *unawarranted* assumptions such as the absence of language
replacements, the projection of traditional PIE reconstructions
(including e.g. morpohology) back to the Upper Paleolithic and so on. So
actually it's you who has an *extraordinary* confidence in the validity
of your theory.

> > there're means of absolute dating for words relative to
> > domesticated animals and plants, technological inventions and so on.
>
> Of course. Neolithic IE words belong to the Neolithic; other words
> to Palaeolithic. Similarly, every language has different diachronic
> lexical layers
>

Thus you should be aware that the IE lexemes and morphemes aren't all
equally old. In the case of IE, most of these Neolithic lexicon
(including some numerals) was borrowed from other languages, mainly
Vasco-Caucasian and Semitic.

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

Not exacty. Altaic and (paleo-)IE have a shared lexicon dating from the
Upper Paleolithic, because they belong to the same phylum.

> > 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.
>
> 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)
>

See above.