Anders, believing that he has "found the mah and meh":
>Apparently it was Sumerian
>Interesting!
>
>(Addition AA)PN *mayak?xa�- "(to be) overly full (of); (to be)
>excessively large (with), excessively great with" > PIE *meig^h-
>/*moig^h-/*mig^h- (from **meighy-) "(to be) overly full (of),
>(to be)
Please be more careful, Anders. You may notice that Patrick Ryan,
the author of your link, is... well, how do we say, "different"
than the rest of us. He doesn't believe in sound rules and
methodology like a normal linguist. His Nostratic reconstructions
are chaotic, all in order to suit his self-contradicting
assertions about language origins. I've run into his ranting on two
Nostratic lists now, and he unfortunately manages to make these
lists unpleasant by way of his cantankerous and irrational posts.
Please don't heed anything on his site because a lot of it is
simply false.
I will have to consult Bomhard's book but, if I recall, he
suggests a less obfuscated reconstruction (something like
Nostratic *mag-, I think?), based on IndoEuropean *megx- and
Sumerian /mah/, among other etyma.
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp