Re: [tied] Re: PK

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 11:46:51 -0000, "richardwordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>*pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
>could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
>started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
>word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
>Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
>words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
>inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
>*pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it had to believe that
>the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
>correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

Nostratic evidence is hard to come by, and even if found not likely to convince
many people. PIE *ye:kWr "liver", pre-PIE **lyé:pWn.t < **lí:punt can be
compared to words for "spleen" in Cushitic (Afar ale'fu:, pl. a'lefit); Chadic
(Angas lap); Uralic (Cheremis lep(a), Votyak lup, Zyryene lOp, Saami *dapde,
Teryugan Ostyak LAp&tne, Hung. lép, Forest nenets Laps'a) and Tungus (Orok
lipc^e): Dolgopol'skij #104), while PIE *kWétwor- "four", pre-PIE **pWét-wa:r- <
**pút- can be compared to Afro-Asiatic *p.ut.-/*?a-p.t.- "four" (Chadic *fud.u,
Eg. ?ftaw, Beja fad.-ig, Somali ?afar, Semitic (with metathesis) *?arb-a3-).
Convinced? I didn't think so.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...