Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:38:35 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

>> 3) *k is an inherited PIE phoneme, reflexes of which are present in
>every
>> branch of PIE and in all semantic fields.
>
>Are you not being a bit hasty here?

No.

>>It may not be as frequent as
>> *k^, but it's doubtlessly present in derivational morphology (more
>common
>> there than *k^ in fact) such as the diminutive and adjectival affix
>> *-(i)ko-.
>
>The suffix *-k- Kuhn counts as one charateristic of Nordwestblock
>placenames. The suffix -ko occurs is Basque too, I read somewhere?
>Now there's a substrate language to borrow it from already.

Now how would PIE have borrowed the suffix from Basque?

See Trask, "the History of Basque", pp. 373-378, for other reasons why PIE
*-(i)ko has nothing to do with Basque -ko.

>Speaking of Kuhn, what do you make of his example Dutch
><pooien> "drink"? Looks almost PIE to me.

I don't know the word. It is in van Dale (1. drink, 2. eat), besides the
better known <pooier> "pimp", <pooien>, <pooieren> "to be a pimp". My
etymological dictionary says:

pooien (1504) wil men afleiden van zigeuners piâva "drinken", wat zeer
onzeker is wegens het vroege voorkomen. Overigens losse gissingen.


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