Sum: the 'only six' argument

[Larry Trask]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I was planning to post a summary of the responses to my query
last week about the 'only six' argument.  However, after the
first few respondents replied to me privately, the responses
shifted to the list, and so all of you will now have seen
most of the responses already.

I will therefore content myself with reporting that no one
who has so far replied has expressed any great sympathy with
any version of the 'only six' argument, and several people
have been openly hostile.

These negative responses don't surprise me at all.  I am
certainly not sympathetic to the 'only six' argument.  It's
just that I keep coming across claims of this sort every now
and again, and I was beginning to wonder if a significant
number of historical linguists were embracing such arguments.
Apparently not.

Anyway, I hope we may continue the discussion on the list,
so long as Dorothy is willing.  My mail spool has been rather
short of interesting historical discussions since the IE list
suddenly collapsed last April.

My thanks to everyone who has replied.


Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk

Tel: 01273-678693 (from UK); +44-1273-678693 (from abroad)
Fax: 01273-671320 (from UK); +44-1273-671320 (from abroad)