Re: Of cows and living

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Torsten, I think Old Chinese is fairly straightforward but I
> thank
> > you for the nice and very interesting summary.
> > >
> > > I am much more concerned about why Sino-Tibetan presents itself
> as
> > a prefixing language.
>
> Maybe because it *is* a prefixing language?
>
>
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > It seems to be there is another, as yet unidentified "player" at
> > the table.
> > >
>
> The three PIE roots *lak(t)-, *galak(t)- and *melg^-/*melk^- *taken
> together* look like they were loaned from a (predominantly)
> prefixing language, eg Sino-Tibetan. The fact that there is a
> similar root with matching semantics in PTB *m-/s-lyak- and in OC
> *luk makes it likely that this is the case.
>
> So, no cognacy, in the strict sense of the word.

And to this family I can add, from Greater Austronesian:

Formosan _alak_ 'child'
Proto-Kra *lak 'child'
Proto-Tai *lMuk 'offspring' (M = back unrounded semivowel)

and possibly

Proto-Tai *?dek 'child' (could be < Kam-Sui *?dek, *?dlek or *?drek)

Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *anak 'child' spoils this set.

But if we want a prefixing donor language, can we not just go to NW
Caucasian? And are we not in grave danger of not only being way
off-topic, but merely collecting look-alikes?

Richard.