Re: Re[2]: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

As Piotr already pointed out, you're confusing the single
segment *kW with the sequence of two segments *k^w (or if
you prefer, *k'w). PIE *k^ > Skt. s', PIE *w > Skt. v, so
*h1ek^wos > Skt. ás'va-.

===========

Greek should be ek-uos or ek-Fos

if that two-segment story was exact.

I consider that two-segment story to be a graphic gimmick

that makes no linguistic sense.

"letter-game" not phonology.

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

From: Brian M. Scott

To: fournet.arnaud

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:25 AM

Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

At 3:40:47 AM on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> Could you explain more about Sanscrit and AV ?
> I thought these languages are Satem :
> k > z(h)
> kw > k

> So we are supposed to expect that
> Hekwos > Skrt akas

As Piotr already pointed out, you're confusing the single
segment *kW with the sequence of two segments *k^w (or if
you prefer, *k'w). PIE *k^ > Skt. s', PIE *w > Skt. v, so
*h1ek^wos > Skt. ás'va-.

> Germanic *e usually is i
> how do you account for *exwaz instead of ixwaz ?

PIE *e > PGmc. *e; this then became *i before nasal plus
consonant (Lat. <ventus>, Goth. <winds>, OE <wind>) or when
followed by *i, *i:, or *j in the next syllable (Lat.
<medius>, Goth. <midjis>, ON <miðr>, OE <midd>). None of
these conditions obtains in the 'horse' word.

Brian