From: benlizro@ihug.co.nz   
      
   On 25/10/2024 6:51 a.m., Ed Cryer wrote:   
   > Christian Weisgerber wrote:   
   >> On 2024-10-24, Ed Cryer  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> [Czech]   
   >>>> For example, the word for "house" is "dům". Its declensions might look   
   >>>> like this:   
   >>>   
   >>> It's probably from Latin "domus".   
   >>   
   >> You might think that, but the etymological consensus is that Slavic   
   >> "dom" and Latin "domus" are cognates, both going back to PIE *dṓm.   
   >>   
   >> The -ů-/-o- alternation in the Czech word is a common pattern, due to   
   >> a soundshift from earlier long ó > uo > ů [uː]. Polish has a similar   
   >> alternation -ó- [u]/-o-, albeit not in this word.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Indo-European was never a language. Nobody ever spoke it. It's a   
   > collection of similar bits and pieces of language assembled with   
   > hindsight. And when it comes to Proto-Indo-European, well, .... castles   
   > in the air.   
   > It's as if you were to walk through a junk-yard of old and trashed cars,   
   > find similarities, and build families of them. And then you examine the   
   > families, and find similarities in those, whence you construct a   
   > previous family.   
   > Given some perseverance you might fathom it back prior to the Tower of   
   > Babel, and find some original lingo that all the homines sapientes   
   > coming out of Africa spoke and understood.  (:-   
   >   
   > Ed   
   >   
      
   I haven't seen this kind of radical I-E skepticism around here since the   
   Indocentrics of yesteryear, now thankfully departed. Do you have an   
   alternative explanation for the many resemblances among I-E languages on   
   which scholars have based their reconstruction of the proto-language?   
   Does your skepticism apply to all the other language families and their   
   associated proto-languages?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)