> *Bhr.: So you'll try to demonstrate something that dozens of scholars
> have already tried to do, while I'm satisfied with proposing something
> that every scholar should have already taken into consideration and
> has never done just because of a prejudice against PIE reconstructions
> DGK: You are as conceited as Sean Whalen. Most scholars do not waste their
> time inventing arbitrary PIE roots to explain all words as inherited, for
> this robotic drone-work does not advance our knowledge, any more than Sean's
> arbitrary optional soundlaws do. It is not a prejudice against PIE
> reconstructions, but a recognition that reducing scientific inquiry to the
> robotic recitation of platitudes amounts to intellectual nihilism.
*Bhr.: a problem has been posed: why /t/ in Tausend (and Traube)?
The presence of unexpected correspondences is usually explained by
i) a 'new' proto-phoneme
ii) a new cluster of known phonemes
iii) a very context specfici sound-law
iv) loan from another language
v) a combination of different affixes with the same root or different
roots with the same affix(es)
vi) no connection at all.
When the irregularity is inside one and the same language, as here,
i-iii don't apply, so we are left with iv-vi. My proposal could have
been made by anyone and is thought to be the best in a frame like v
(everybody would be sad is vi were true...), Yours is a classical
instance of iv; an optional sound law, on the contrary, wouldn't fit
into this scheme.
But of course You'll never agree with anything I write just because
it's me (had it been written by some Authority, You wouldn't have
spent so much time), so why going on? You are The Great DGK, we can
only be proud to have had the incredible luck of being illuminated ny
You... Hosanna in Excelsis!