From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52508
Date: 2008-02-08
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: "Cybalist" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:01 AM
Subject: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-
<snip>
One of the points Piotr seeks to make in his paper is to argue for the
existence, otherwise unattested, of the form *gWeu-
The HS (my PA) root in Orel & Stolbova #516 is listed in three forms:
*ca?-/*caw-/*cay-, "move upwards'
The <c> has an inverted chevron.
If one assumes that Nostratic is the parent of both PA and PIE, and these
are inherited roots from Nostratic, presumably, at some point, PIE had them,
too.
In PIE, they would have the forms *gWa(:)H-, *gWei-, and *gWeu.
As I mentioned before, there is more to relate these PA and PIE roots.
That is the existence of PIE *gWem-, which almost corresponds with O&S #550,
namely *cem-, 'go, enter' (same chevron, of course).
I am working on a hypothesis that at least some PA <e> represent <e:>, a
contraction of [ay]. Thus I suspect them *ce(:)m- represents an earlier
*caym-.
Why is this potentionally important?
If the combining form were *gWei- rather than *gwe-, then it is possible
that *gWeu- represents an an earlier *gWyeu-, a root-form that would, I
think, bolster Piotr's argument.
I have to admit that we have no discernible trace of a <y> in PIE *gWem- but
Piotr will know best if *gWyem- could develop into *gWem- without
palatalizing the initial.
Whether *gWyem- ever existed or not, I am relatively certain that the
Egyptian cognate Sm, go', was actually S(j)m, i.e. [sh-y-m].
There are many who will question my connection of Egyptian <S> (esh) and <X>
(bar-h) with PIE *g(^)W- and *k(^)w- but in the document I have been
linking, are many examples of the correlation:
http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_table.htm
Piotr, are you so unconvinced of the Nostratic hypothesis that you would
have to judge these correlations as coincidental?
Patrick