--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...> wrote:

>
>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...>

wrote:

> > >
> > >
> > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > > > 3. how many starred forms are needed
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand this factor. Please expand on what you

have in

> > > > mind.
> > >
> > > They posit PIE words from which attested ones are derived.
> > Furthermore,
> > > like the
> > > old elements table there are holes and they too have to be

filled

> > in
> > > with starred forms.
> > > The more you have to create the worse your system.
> >
> > PIE is not attested; it is inferred. Therefore all PIE words

should

> > be starred. However, the starring is therefore redundant, and

often

> > omitted.
>
>
> Obviously they have to be starred; the question is how many?

I still don't understand you. I would expect one starred form per
meaning on the lists, apart from a very few possible exceptions -
'you' & 'thou'; 'man', 'person' & 'woman'; and 'this', 'that', 'he'
& 'they' (if the latter are on the lists). Can you give some
concrete examples.

> > > > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Another example is the pair
> > > > > > *pah2ur- and *h2ngni- of PIE words
> > > > > > for 'fire'.

> That is not the main problem. The main problem is how much evidence

from

> outside
> IE should count in the reconstruction of Nostratic. One does not
> construct IE on the
> basis of Icelandic and Sinhalese only. If a third language is taken

into

> account some of
> the postulated sound changes would have to be modified. If we add a

4th

> language
> more changes are needed. Hence, if evidence from outside IE is
> considered for Nostratic
> then IE might have to be changed.

The above seems confused. It is obvious that non-IE evidence has to
be considered for Nostratic. Are you suggesting that the
reconstruction of PIE might have to be reviewed in the light of other
Nostratic languages?

Richard.