I like this. In the first place, even from the Wikipedia scrot it's obvious
there is no agreement among defunct let alone living scholars about the
protosoup of speak. What I really love though, Jon, and pardon me for
succumbing to the irresistable chance to tease, is your employment of the
word 'rules'. I just have this vision of roaming nomadic farmers being
directed to a blackboard: 'now this is how you must conjugate your verbs.
You, you there at the back, what are you scribbling to yourself? Let's see
it. I thought so: an illegitimate 'p' for an 'f'. Take five thousand
hexameters on a common mythological theme and deliver them to me by next
Thor's Day'.
I'm glad to note there's no way you can summarise the work of the scholars
nor explain why it's scientifically valid, which is to the well as
unfortunately it isn't, no hypothesis that is not verifiable can ever be so.
Ppff.
Best
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Corelis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: IE radicals (response to Robin)
> Actually, the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and the rules by which
> it developed into languages ranging from ancient Greek and Sanskrit to
> modern English and Romance languages are well established and accepted by
> mainstream scholars. There's no way I can even summarize this work, or
the
> explanation of why it's scientifically valid, here, but there are many
books
> and encyclopedia articles available on it for those who want to
investigate
> the subject. I will however note for those interested that there have
been
> several attempts by scholars to reconstruct what PIE probably sounded
like;
> one (actually several in different versions) easily available on the
> Internet is at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher's_fable
|