I stumbled across a page offering PIE-to-English and English-to-PIE lists. Before I add them to my site, I would be interested to hear views on the quality of the scholarship in the essays on the same site.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/PIE-to-English.htmThanks.
This quote from the introduction does not inspire confidence:
The kind of solid data being generated and its careful analysis cannot be "quibbled away" by the liberal ideologues who still chase the butterflies of independent language invention and believe in "borrowing frenzies" which cause speakers of one language to unmotivatedly and unnecessarily borrow words for common and familiar concepts from neighboring languages.
Bingley
well, I am in no way qualified to offer any comment on the scholarship, but there are far too many animated gifs on that site for me...
That quote, Bingley, seems merely to underscore a belief that the Indo-European languages are related. Maybe you could explain why it bothers you.
Actually, no. He's arguing for the original language of the human race, which he identifies as Nostratic, being re-constructable.
It may or may not be true that Nostratic was the original language and it may or may not be true that it can be re-constructed. I have my doubts, but it is a possibility.
What I fail to see is why those who disagree with him should be demonised as the liberal ideologues who still chase the butterflies of independent language invention and believe in "borrowing frenzies" and who are seeking to "quibble away" the results of his analysis.
Bingley
Aha! Thanks, B. I hadn't gone that deeply into the site. But if his PIE scholarship is good …
I would be interested to hear views on the quality of the scholarship in the essays on the same site.
It isn't my cup of etymology, but the author's intentions certainly appear laudable.
He says he wants to present all of the "minority" arguments in favor of a single source language in one essay with cross-references.
He is inviting visitors to contribute to the effort.
It sounds like he is performing a service for anyone who is interested in a speedy immersion into an esoteric subject where the scholarship is scattered and only the initiated know who is saying what, and who is whom.
If he achieves what he is setting out to do, the visitor can screen out the dogmatists with ease, separating the wheat from the chaff. [Of course, there could be a kernel of value in some of that chaff.]
Who can fault the author's ambition or his approach?
He begins by stating his particular prejudice and then he concludes his introduction with this:
I will be providing links to counter-arguments which the reader will be able to access through this central essay --- as well as the arguments presented by its opponents --- so that anyone may obtain a balanced view of the question.
That's pretty fair, isn't it?