From: Tavi
Message: 69471
Date: 2012-04-30
>Not really. IMHO, "PIE" is more a convenient fiction than an actual language. This is why I think it should be replaced by a better model.
> > Pretending everything must be inherited from "PIE" instead of borrowed
> > is more an obsession than a true scientific approach.
>
> I've always said "can". The only one who uses "must" is Ocatvià
> Alexandre, do You know him?
> He pretends that, among all theoretical possibilities, only those
> he likes are correct. He has a real obsession against PIE
>
> > Not really, because we've got the evidence in the form of toponymy andThen tell me why how could Basque, Iberian, Etruscan and other non-IE languages exist in Europe?
> > substrate loanwords.
>
> Your evidence is made of Your etymologies. That isn't evidence,
> it's - correctly - an amount of working hypotheses.
>
> > Even if each individual lexemal were in fact inheritedAs I said before, "PIE" isn't a real language. That's all.
> > from "PIE", the compound is English (or Germanic at best), not PIE.
>
> Not at all, because its compositional rules are PIE as well as its
> lexical members. It appears that You have serious difficulties in
> operating with the notion of linguistic system. I suggest You to get a
> bit deeper into such simple general concepts as system, norm, and
> usage, because You don't seem to be able to make a distinction between
> them. It's a matter a metalanguage, otherwise we waste our time
>
> > BTW, the word land is a Celtic loanword into Germanic.From French lande (a direct descendant of the Gaulish form), dialectal Portuguese branda and Gascon brana 'heath', we can reconstruct a Celtic protoform *Flanda: 'heath, uncultivated land'. In Insular Celtic and elsehwere, this word shifted its meaning to 'fallow land' and ultimately to 'land', probably linked to the spread of new agricultural technologies.
>
> I know quite well this hypothesis. Are You able to repeat publicly
> its argument?
>
> Let me observe that while many people tell You that You're areI'm only trying to transmit you the drawbacks of your theory within a rational discourse. I'm not attacking you, Guido, and I'm sorry if you feel so.
> wrong and insult You, now that You have found a person who says 'You
> may be right' You attack him (me) many times a day. You assert that my
> ideas are wrong, while I've always just pointed out that my model is
> potentially valid no less than Yours. You keep on attacking one of the
> few friends You have. You seem to look for fight insted of discussion
>