Re: [tied] just verifying a point

----- Original Message -----

From: alexmoeller@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:10 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] just verifying a point

 

> It is in a thraco-illirian region. Why should belive it is a celtic one? The panonians where  a mixture of thracian and illirian and very less celts. So, I repeat your question by this way. Why should I belive is a celtic one and not a thracian one?

 

 

The term "Thraco-Illyrian" is meaningless unless you can show that the languages in question were closely related. No facts known to me justify such lumping. Two languages cannot be assumed to be related only because both are poorly known. Pannonia is not Thrace, Thracian was not spoken in Pannonia, while we know that there were Celts near by and Celtic influence was rather strong there. The name _might_ be Illyrian (we know so little about Illyrian that it's hard to exclude anything), but a Celtic interpretation is quite natural, while a Thracian one is out of the question.

 

 

> As Mr Vinereanu observes, Kw>b(p) and gW>b allways except when fallowed by -i- and -e-.

 

 

I'd love to see some of Mr. Vinereanu's equations, especially if he "works just with elements he knows what they mean for avoiding any misunderstanding". That must be very different from the usual interpretations of Thracian material.

 

 

> We assume in thracian Kw >p(b) is not thrue and this reflex is not to find. In this case how can you explain that Esbenos come from *ekwos? If there is not this reflex kW>p(b) where from you will have this "b" here?

 

 

Sorry, Alex, but I sometimes get the impression that you can't read. First, the 'horse' word is *ek^wos, not *ekWos (got it? or shall I repeat?). Secondly, Thracian is a Satem language, and PIE *k^ > Thracian s. Thirdly, PIE *w > Thracian b (probably pronounced as a fricative, i.e. [v]). To sum up, *-k^w- > -sb-, and therefore *ek^wos > esba-. Got it at last? It was all there in the previous messages.

 

 

> As a matter of fact, in romanian language there is this rulle always: kW>p(b) except when fallowed by -e- and -i-.

 

 

Whatever happens in Romanian, Romanian is not Thracian.

 

 

> I posted there a message with the thracian characteristics for the people who want to take a look.

 

 

Such stipulations are of little interest if not supported by good examples, and that in particular concerns Mr. Vinereanu controversial proposal that *kW, *gW > p, b. It's all the more controversial because Mr. Vinereanu evidently tekaes Thracian to be Satem (as his other rules make clear). WHAT IS HIS EVIDENCE?

 

> Where Salapia was. That is the right question here. It was in today Dobrogea. If you will like, I will ask for geographikal coordinates.

 

 

Please do that.

Piotr