Re: The "antediluvian" Xur-Gon

Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On May 7, 1:32 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 7, 6:15 am, Du¹an Vukotiæ <dusan.vuko...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The development of IE languages has been much simpler than anyone has
ever imagined. Namely, if we know the "source", from which the IE
words has been generated, we can "calculate" the exact "trajectory" of
any single word that can be found in any of the IE vocabularies.
You keep saying you "can" do it, but you never actually do it.

You surely know that there are no phonetic laws, which could be
applied without exception. Even the Grimm's law is questionable in
certain contexts. A year and half ago I tried to explain that Serbian
pekar (baker) and English baker are the cognate words. Following the
phonetic rules, Brian concluded that English bake/baker could not be
related to Serbian peći/pekar (pekao), regardless of the identical
meaning/s, because, as he emphasized:

[...PIE *bH-, the source of Gmc. *b-, also yields *b- in Slavic, while
PIE *p-, the source of Slavic *p-, yields *f- in Gmc."

When I asked Brian, what are we then going to do with the OHG pachan
and packan (bake) and with the initial /p/ in this case? - he remained
silent. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/89ea41a0cac1ac83?

But you've remained silent about how "baker" and "pekar" *could* have descended from the same root. As far as you're concerned, they sound alike and have the same meaning, so that's all there is to it. But as has been discovered time and time again, this is not a reliable basis for determining word relationships. So you can repeat a thousand times that the words sound similar and mean the same thing, and you still will not have demonstrated how they could have evolved from the same source. THAT's what you have to demonstrate.


I would rather say, there are no strict phonetic laws, but only
phonetic tendencies. And that tendencies are, of course, in
concordance with the "effectual" phonologic system of a certain tongue
and the standardization of language/s.

But you never bother coming up with either phonetic laws OR phonetic tendencies to explain how your sets of words can be related among themselves.

The most important phonetic
rules are still to be found

When the day comes that you find one, let us know. Until then you aren't going to be able to demonstrate satisfactorily any of your proposed relationships that aren't supported by the studies of others.

and I personally am doing some researches,

Let us know when you find something. Until then, stop pretending it doesn't matter that you haven't.
.

Quantcast