Re: Why the Proto-Indoeuropean numerals are not motivated within IE?

At 7:16:31 AM on Thursday, May 31, 2012, Tavi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>>> All these people (Greenberg, Ruhlen, Bengtson) belong to
>>> what I call the "Sapir-Swadesh school", whose main
>>> representants are Edward Sapir and Morris Swadesh and
>>> which sees Comparative Linguistics as a branch of
>>> Anthropology. By contrast, modern IE studies, founded by
>>> 19th century's Neogrammarians, are a branch of Classical
>>> Phylology

>> I doubt that there are many modern historical linguists
>> who see historical linguistics as anything but a
>> historical science in its own right, with roots in
>> anthropology *and* philology (among other things).

> Buit the thing is, how much do mainstream IE studies
> actually share with historical linguistics?

It takes either great ignorance or great prejudice (to the
point of effectively being ignorance) to ask that question.
Mainstream IE linguistics is a major area of historical
linguistics.