Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Haden" <magwich78@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for Nostratic? (was Re: Proto-Uralic?)


> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:21:45 -0600, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:
>
> >How about *septm which is also accented on its syllabic consonant?
>
> OK, something has to give here.  PIE, as currently reconstructed, is a
> mess.  It's like a chimera -- some kind of outrageous form that could
never
> have actually existed.  There's just no way to make sense of it all as it
> is right now, therefore the reconstructions must be (partially) incorrect.
Why is it impossible?  Odd, perhaps, but just because it does not conform to
some expectations makes it by no means impossible.

> I'm particularly frustrated with "laryngeals" popping up in every other
PIE
> reconstructed word (or so it seems).  I think PIE-ists are just using
those
> when they Really Don't Know what the correct form is.  But maybe I'm wrong
> (once again, lol).
No, there is plenty of evidence for laryngeals.  They pop up a lot in
Hittite.  Some may be odd, but I'm sure they're there for a reason.

> - Rob
>