This is a good example. Suppose IE had something like hahad for "first" which looks like
Semitic. Now do we suppose that Semitic did not have "one" but instead borrowed it from IE or do we
instead assume that one word for "one" is good enough for IE? Suppose also that this
word also seemed to be related to "finger" and also related to "head". What then would
be the verdict? Would we assume that this other language (in this example SEmitic)
borrowed the word from IE and changed it into "one", "head", "finger"?

I am talking about general principles that are used in historical linguistics. So far the
only one I have ever seen discussed on lists/newsgroups is "recurrent sound change".
That heuristic (called regular sound change before Kessler) seems to be the only
one, not that it is not a sound heuristic.

Would it not behoove us to think about "principles" that can be applied
consistently accross languages instead of making them along the way as we see fit?
How can something as complex as language family relationships be based on
a single heuristic?

richard.wordingham@... wrote:

Within the Nostratic fold, we also have Hebrew ?eh.a:d 'one', ri:So:n 'first' (from ro:S 'head') and Arabic ?ah.ad 'one', ?awwal 'first'.

Richard.

null

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nostratica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-- 
M. Hubey
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
The only difference between humans and machines is that humans
can be created by unskilled labor. Arthur C. Clarke

/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/ http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey