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

PIE-Arabic will yield false results
At least go back to Semitic --which seems to be very
well studied
and then compare it to Berber, Egyptian, and what you
can find in Chadic, Cushitic and Omotic --as well as
AA reconstructions


--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick McCallister
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic
> Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)
>
>
> PIE Arabic is a waste of time --go back to AA and
> you
> can't find the AA root, at least give roots from
> Semitic, Berber, Egyptian, Cushitic, Omotic and
> Chadic. No one will take PIE Arabic seriously
> unless
> you're positing loanwords
>
> =========
>
> PIE, even with some flaws, is the best studied
> proto-language.
>
> Arabic has the richer lexical body of all PAA.
>
> It's not a waste of time to start with PIE versus
> Arabic alone.
>
> Egyptian is obscure, Berber is a ruin, Omotic is
> not a clear member of PAA
>
> Do you have a proto-Tchadic, proto-Cushitic ?
>
> Arnaud
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________

> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping