From: Jörg Rhiemeier
Message: 70315
Date: 2012-10-28
On Sunday 28 October 2012 03:21:10 Brian M. Scott wrote:
> At 2:54:10 PM on Saturday, October 27, 2012, Tavi wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jörg Rhiemeier
> >
> > <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
> >
> >> That are, as Brian has pointed out, *many different*
> >> languages, and a label such as "Paleo-IE" is meaningless
> >> and misleading.
> >
> > Brian is clearly exaggerating. From the ancient toponymy
> > and hydronymy we know at least some of these languages
> > were close relatives (i.e. your "Aquan"), as shown by the
> > 'water' root series: *akW-a:, *ab-/ap-, *up-/ub-, etc.
>
> Irrelevant. I don't deny that many of the languages in that
> grab-bag must have been related to one another. The fact
> remains that Palæo-IE as you define it is not a language
> family in any meaningful sense of the term. I repeat:
>
> To see just how silly that is, imagine a language X
> descended from English and spoken a few millennia hence:
> in your terms 'Paleo-X' would have to include Arabic,
> Finnish, Nahuatl, several N. American Indian languages,
> several Chinese languages, Japanese, Hawai`ian, et cetera
> ad absurdum.
Indeed. That's all one can say about that.
I am tired of arguing with Mr. Alexandre. I have heard all his
arguments many times before, and I have said what I have to say
about his ideas many times over, and he never took any heed of
it. It is utterly futile, and a waste of time I could otherwise
use for more reasonable things.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
[Language history web site under construction]