From: Tavi
Message: 69515
Date: 2012-05-04
>There're also VC substrate loanwords in IE languages, especially Romance ones.
> As Tavi will promptly remember to us, we have
> to take into consideration Basque as well (although no Basque
> linguistic text has ever been found in this area).
>
> > I'm afraid you confuse (I don't know if purposely or not) Basque and
> > Vasco-Caucasian.
>
> half-purposely. Purposely in the sentence "take into consideration
> Basque as well", because what you do is to compare Basque words (in
> order to reconstruct VC ones, but they are nevertheless Basque as for
> their attested forms); of course you compare Caucasian words as well.
> I should have added "Caucasian languages". Does it suffice?
>
> Not purposely in the following sentence, which I as promptly as IIf I'm not mistaken, you think languages with no attested texts simply don't exist, so the terms "substrate" and "substrate loanword" are meaningless to you. Am I right?
> can correct into: "although no Vasco-Caucasian text has ever been
> found in this area". I this way your situation is still worse.
>
> > However, what reallyOK.
> > matters is your apparent *emphasis* on the first colonization, which
> > implictly minorizes the impact of the following ones. By contrast,
> > Villar states that the Aurignacian episode wouldn't have left any
> > detectable linguistic traces in Europe. And although I won't go so far
> > as Villar, I've got to recognize that linguistic impact of the
> > Gravettian and the Neolithic colonization episodes was much more
> > important than the Aurignacian one.
>
> all you recognize is based on previous equations between languages
> and cultures. What you've written simply means that you've got to
> recognize the impact of the languages you have associated with
> Gravettian and Neolithic colonizations has been much more important
> the the one you associate with the Aurignacian colonization.
> We are interestingly discussing precisely about such associations
> between languages and cultures. We won't arrive at an end.
> Anyway please stop confusing my working hypothesis with assertions
> on my side. There's a fundamental difference between hypothesis and
> conclusion. I've stated my hypotheses, not my conclusions. You assert
> my hypothesis have been already falsified, but till now you've never
> given a measurement, so it doesn't matter what you think, until you
> haven't given any measurement I can't leave my hypotheses.
> Moreover, nobody really cares about what I think and I don't care
> about what people think about me or my theories, I just care about
> what you and other people think about linguistic history and
> prehistory (and also politics and religion if you want). So please
> once for all stop criticizing every word of mine, even when I'm
> writing to other people, and give us more etymologies and,
> necessarily, sound laws. You see I almost never criticize you apart
> minimal details and anyway always in relation of what I've written;
> can't you do the same as well?
>
> > I've given several reasons which lead to that conclusion, andBut his paleo-IE model is very different from yours, and this is much more significant.
> > this is precisely why my own model is closer to Villar's than to Alinei's
> > or your own.
>
> anyway Villar is closer to me than to you, and the three of us are
> equally far from Alinei
>
> > Not really, because Villar's model consist of a very early "paleo-IE"
> > which fragmented into several paleo-dialects detectable in the ancient
> > topoponymy and hydronymy. Only much later the historical IE languages
> > emerged, arising from the "explosive" (in Villar's own words) expansion
> > of the Steppes dialect in the Chalcolithic-Bronze Age, replacing other
> > linguistic varieties which acted as substrates.
>
> OK, this is a pertinent discussion. In my opinion, if you leave a
> wide place for VC in European prehistory and both Villar and I don't,
> Villar is closer to me than to you, because such a difference is
> greater than preconstructing Palaeo-IE with /o/ or with /a/, with /b d
> g/ of /bh dh gh/.
>
> Alinei, for its own, assigns PIE in its usually reconstructed form (butI disagree. If "PIE", as reconstructed by IE-ists, isn't a real protolanguage but a cross-section of the IE family, projecting it back in time would give a distorted picture. Not all the "roots" nor all the sound shifts have the same chronology. To name an example, the reduction of labiovelar clusters happened in some paleo-IE dialect(s) but not in others. Hence we've got *akW-a: 'water' vs. *ap-/*ab-/*up-/*ub- id. And as I mentioned before, the Germanic word for 'bear' descends from a "reducing" paleo-dialect, which is also reflected in Altaic.
> without any trace of laryngeals) to Palaeolithic and no later.
> I assign PIE in its usually reconstructed form - with laryngeals - to
> Palaeo-, Meso-, Neo- and Chalcolithic.
>
> > Both approaches are huge misrepresentations, involving a lot of
> > unwarranted (and most unlikely) assumptions and ignoring linguistic
> > data.
>
> assumptions must be unwarranted. In my case I make just one
> assumption (not "a lot"): there are no linguistic a priori
> restrictions for back-projections of IE lexicon through generally
> acknowledged sound laws.
>