Re: Lat. gladius and Sorothaptic

At 5:34:38 AM on Thursday, August 16, 2012, Tavi wrote:

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

>>> That is, I see no problem in reconstructing a consonant X,
>>> provided it can be described with enough accuracy.

>> So because the evidence is insufficient to pin down the
>> precise phonetic character of the laryngeals,

> I beg your pardon? I think there's enough evidence to give
> an approximate reconstruction. See for example A.
> Martinet: Des steppes aux océans. L'indo-européen et les
> "Indo-Européens".

Then you obviously don't know what 'ad hoc' means, since you
grossly misused the expression in the statement that led to
this exchange.

>> you dismiss the evidence that they existed and that there
>> were probably three or four of them?

> I do *nothing* of the kind, but I see no point in
> continuing calling them "laryngeals" and use an algebraic
> notation.

Too bad; that's their name. It's well understood by those
who work in the field, and only an idiot would worry
overmuch about whether it's phonetically apt. And the
algebraic notation is rather handy in those cases in which
we can't identify a particular laryngeal, never mind that
there's hardly a consensus on their reconstructions.

>> That certainly looks to me like a serious failure to
>> understand IE linguistics.

> Actually, I think "IE linguistics" is at fault with regard
> to modern scientific standards.

When you show the slightest sign of understanding what
modern scientific standards are, someone might care.