11

(This was going to be a comment but it got too long. I hope it is useful nonetheless.) I can speak for Austroasiatic linguistics (a fairly large family with a small core of researchers actively working on reconstruction). The consensus in the field is that glottochronological estimates are outdated and not particularly useful. In current presentations, ...


5

The best reference on Old Novgorod is Andrey Zaliznyak's 2004 monograph, Древненовгородский диалект (Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt, 2nd ed.), freely available online https://inslav.ru/publication/zaliznyak-drevnenovgorodskiy-dialekt-2-e-izd-m-2004 (this is the official website of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences) There’s an ...


5

There are several approaches of these word-lists. Some people like J. Greenberg deemed them practical, but attached no extra value to them. Some others assign them more methodological values than just being practical. Among present-day comparatists, only the Moscow School still "believes" in that kind of word-lists and calculations. Most linguists ...


4

One of the core assumptions of lexicostatistics, the constant word replacement rate, was questioned be Daniel Nettle (1999) who suggests different rates of language evolution depending on the size of the speech community. Language in small (and small means really small here) speech communities changes faster than in larger ones.


3

Unfortunately, there's no real consensus on any sort of "Proto-Australian" reconstruction. Some linguists like Dixon proposed "Australian" as an actual language family, with a common ancestor, but my impression is that this isn't popular any more: most linguists now consider Australian to be a Sprachbund containing multiple not-...


2

The reconstruction as PIE root h₁n̥gʷnís is highly dubious. IMO better is H3egni-, even though some comparanda do not fit very well into it (They don't fit in h₁n̥gʷnís either...). A connection with Mari, Khanty and Hungarian is thinkable, but Komi with a palatal nasal does not seem to fit.


2

There is some evidence of initial *h₁ in roots like *h₁es- "be". Alex B in the comments quotes an exercise from Fortson's textbook, Vedic ā́sat "monster" from *n̥-h₁s-. If the root were **∅es-, we would expect **n̥-∅s- > **ás- with a short vowel. But reconstructing it with the laryngeal, *n̥-h₁s- > ā́s- due to compensatory ...


2

Very frequently, Tocharian has y- where *H1 is expected: for example "horse" is yuk. I suppose Fortson does not mention that kind of phenomenon because Tocharian is far from being completely understood.


1

In general, for any known language sound there is some probability that a given language will have that sound, so that the clicks are very rare sounds and [a] is a very common sound. Theoretically, you could say that the probability is N that a language would have any labial fricative, or M that it will have [ɸ], if only we had a uniform list of phonemes of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible