--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
> The discussion here is about *ka, *k^a etc. in PIE. But who said
they were
> really present?
>
> Please consult the Lubotsky's article "Against a Proto-Indo-
European phoneme
> *a", available on
This link should work better
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/2662
. Of
> course, if no *a's were present in PIE, all the discussion on
uvular or
> pharyngeal character of *k/*g/*gh is just groundless.
>
> Of the previously mentioned by me, Lubotsky gives the following
> reconstructions: *bheH2g^- for bhajati / phagein, *k^eH2d- for
cadere/çad-,
> *g^heH2n-s- ~ *g^hH2n-s- for goose.
>
He has to resort to -eh2- 's, if he wants to keep PIE free of
loanwords.
I heard by chance the other day that there is such a thing as acorn
poisoning in horses. That means (I think) that if *bhag- "beech, oak"
is identical to *bhag- "eat" (in Greek), then the root has to do with
pig raising (they were deiven out to feed in the forest, whether on
the nuts of beech or oak was immaterial). The *bhag- root exists in
Basque too, supposedly a loan from Latin (why?).
The goose is a proven import article too.
The Basque also supposedly borrowed another Latin word in ba-,
namely 'baculus' or 'bacillus' -> makila "staff". Trouble with -u-/-i-
vs. -l-/-ll-, and why borrow a word that can't be IE in Latin
(because of /b/, /a/)?
Torsten