Re: Portuguese, Spanish bode "buck"

In the model where Hunter-Gatherers, Agriculturalists and Kurgan
Pastoralists are all PIE-speaking, everything is easy, no real natural
or social law or trend is contradicted and Comparative-Reconstructive
Linguistics works at best, but the unfair reactions I've been
experiencing since decades indicate that Linguists are mostly in love
with a Western-like Colonialist model and, beside that, the majority
of them more or less consciously hate PIE. I love discussing, but it's
more than evident that any discussion is useless

2013/4/2, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> *Bhr.: in Your opinion, the distance between 'person or animal
>> charatcterized by a short and thick form' and 'plumcake' isn't larger
>> than the one between 'person or animal charatcterized by a short and
>> thick form' and 'little lamb', is it?
>>
> Of course, I was exaggerating a little in order to stress my point, that
> is, that the semantic connection you proposed wasn't a straightforward
> one.
>
> I'm really tired of endless discussions about particular etymologies, so
> I'd like to focus on the broader picture. Ortodox IE-ists tend to
> consider everything to be derived from PIE, except perhaps a small
> residue of substrate loanwords and Wanderwörter. But in the case of
> Greek, Beekes takes a "maximalist" approach and so considers everything
> which doesn't fit in the native Greek sound correspondences as coming
> from a Pre-Greek substrate. What's is odd is he claims to follow
> Furnée's works in considering this substrate to be a single language
> (something which defies common sense), but at the same time he
> completely disengages from its external relationship (Furnee considered
> "Pelasgian" to be related to Kartvelian, and more recently, Schrijver
> proposed a relationship with Hattic). By contrast, Georgiev (a
> continuist "avant la lettre") considered his "Thraco-Pelasgian" to be an
> IE branch much like Douglas' "West Pontic", denying the existence of any
> pre-IE substrate in SW Europe (although certainly not in other areas).
>
> Although I broadly agree with Arnaud and Villar in which PIE has an
> older chronology than in the ortodox theory, I disagree on details. In
> my opinion, IE has its origin in the languages spoken by
> hunters-gatherers in Mesolithic Europe, who advanced northwards
> following the retreat of the ice cap, leaving their mark in the Old
> European Hydronymy (OEH), which reflect different dialects. But
> contrarily to Villar, I think the Neolithic Anatolian farmers who
> colonized most of SW spoke unrelated (or at least not closely related)
> languages. However, there's evidence Central Europe Neolithic (LBK
> culture) was a product of autochthonous hunter-gatherers who adopted
> Neolithic technology. The boundary between both groups is marked by the
> distribution of the lactose-tolerant gene:
> http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-141465-galleryV9-ikia.jpg
>
> In his last book, Villar made a statistical study over a sample of IE
> lexicon related to agriculture, according to which Central Europe
> Neolithic had a direct impact only in Italic, Germanic and Baltic, less
> in Slavic and marginally also in Celtic and Greek. Other isoglosses
> (studied by Georgiev and Gamkrelidze-Ivanov) group together Germanic,
> Baltic and Slavic.
>
> Also contrarily to Mallory-Gimbutas theory, Kurgan people can only be
> associated with Indo-Iranian speakers, although they certainly
> influenced other groups. So even when "Kurganic IE" has interesting
> lexical and morphological innovations, is far from being the PIE sought
> by IE-ists since the 19th crentury.
> Also the linguistic impact of the Kurgan invasions should be minimized
> with regard to the ortodox theory. Of course, there're many things to be
> added to this theory, but as a broad picture I think it's essentialy
> correct.
>
>
>