Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 51604
Date: 2008-01-20

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ryan
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 2:36 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:16 AM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@ ...>
wrote:


Except that Semitic did form triliterals from biliterals by inserting
a weak consonant as the second consonant - s-w-q even looks rather
appropriate. We do have a minor voicing problem, though. A biliteral
sq should correspond to *seg, *seg^ or *segW.

============

You might try reading a little more closely, Arnaud. Richard Wordingham wrote the words you attribute to me above.  And I do not agree with him.

==========
I was actually writing to the previous author : M. Wordingham.
Arnaud
 
***
What about :
PIE sekw = Arabic sâq "follow in a row"
PIE ghwen = Arabic qana? "kill violently"
PIE gwel = Arabic aqlawla "to fly in the air"
I'm afraid your idea about what should or should not is too simple.
 
Arnaud
 
These are examples showing that Arabic /q/ and PAA *q in general
have more than one origin : not just *k?
and correspond to either *g or any labio-velar : *gw, *kw, *ghw.
 
The word -should- refers to the preceding sentence :
""A biliteral sq **should** correspond to *seg, *seg^ or *segW.""
 
So my point of view is : No, It should not.
Things are more complicated than that.
 
Arnaud
 
====================