Re: Why do Pokorny's roots for water have an "a" in front?

Then be satisfied with invented substrates and the Far West Model of
PIE. It seems that You all consider Glottochronology a better attested
fact than plain etymological method. What's incredible to me is that
You all practically hate PIE: it has above all to be restricted,
limited, short-lived, with the smallest amount of words and phonemes,
while invented substrates flourish undemonstrated... You all really
prefer invented languages to reconstructed PIE

2012/12/11, Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>:

> At 7:55:12 PM on Monday, December 10, 2012,
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>
>> It's apparent that reconstructable phonology has had an
>> impressive rising of its rate of change in the latest
>> millennia (at least up to the Middle Ages included).
>
> It is?
>
>> Please don't put every Continuity Theory into the same
>> slot; the extreme possibility to be taken into
>> consideration is a PIE diasystem (in fact a very
>> differentiated lexical one, just as one would expect, but
>> with extreme conservativism at *reconstructible*
>> phonological level, i.e. plosives, not liquids or
>> vibrants) encompassed a whole linguistic history from
>> Palaeolithic to Chalcolithic
>
> 'Because nothing can (still) exclude it' is insufficient
> reason to consider seriously something that is so clearly
> incompatible with what we can actually observe of linguistic
> change.
>
> Brian
>
>