"Most recently, Krell (1998) argued that "the old, pliable crutch of linguistic paleontology should certainly be abandoned, at least until the theoretical uses and limitations of the Proto-Indo-European lexicon have been more precisely defined" (280).... "It is imperative, in working with the problem of Indo-European origins, that the contents of the PIE lexicon not be treated too literally. Historical linguistics has shown numerous examples of how dramatically the meaning of a given word can shift in the course of a few centuries, let alone several millennia" (279). She concludes that "the use of so-called 'linguistic paleontology' . . . has always been a popular method in the construction of Proto-Indo-European urheimat theories. It rests entirely on the supposition that the meaning of a proto-form can be reconstructed beyond a reasonable doubt, a supposition which I argue is false" (279)."