From: Rick McCallister
Message: 53661
Date: 2008-02-18
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister____________________________________________________________________________________
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>
> > --- Richard Wordingham <richard@...>
> > wrote:
>
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> > > <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
>
> > > > "... English and Hindi ...
> > > > share only some five
> > > > clear cognates on the
> > > > Swadesh 100-word list (Campbell and Poser in
> press).
>
> > > who - kaun - not clear
> > > what - kya: - not clear
>
> > But if you see both pairs together, you notice the
> > wh-k parallel
>
> True. I'm pretty sure they count by Swadesh's rules
> (or at least, the
> one set I've read, if he gave several). I think
> having the pairs
> 'this' and 'that' and the pair 'who' and 'what'
> makes for statistical
> mischief. After all, given Thai _ni:_H_ 'this' and
> _nan:_H_ 'that',
> you could set up an English-Thai equivalence /ð/ <->
> /n/! Having
> 'man' and 'human being' may also be troublesome.
>
> What I wrote was ambiguous. I meant another three
> cognates, not
> another three clear cognates in the following:
>
> > > There are another three I am not so confident
> about:
> > > eye - ã:kh
> > > (finger)nail - na:khu:n
> > Not unless you know Anglo-Saxon or another Gmc
> language
>
> The Germanic vowel (*au) in the 'eye' word does not
> match the rest of
> IE (*o). I wasn't sure about the nasalisation in
> the Hindi form, but
> I now think it got there by metathesis (Sanskrit
> oblique form
> _akSN-_). IIr *kH in the 'nail' word does not match
> *gH in the rest
> of IE, and I must say the Hindi form looks
> suspiciously close to the
> Persian form.
>
> > > nose - na:k - Parallel stems?
> >
> > but nark and na:k are definitely clear :>
>
> Richard.
>
>