From: Tavi
Message: 70318
Date: 2012-10-28
>Yes, you and Brian might as well stop *trolling*.
> 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.
>