Re: Finnish KASKI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:05 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKI


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

> You cut off my question. Did you not want to answer it?
>
> I will repeat it: is PUr certain to be the parent of Samoyed?

I do not have the facts to hand to demonstrate that Proto-Uralic *s
was [s].

***

That is also not what I asked.

I asked, for the third time, if it is certain that PUr is the parent of
Samoyed?

If it is not, your example loses all relevance.

***





> That was the only example of what I was asking that I saw.

Why can you not deduce the possibility of s > t from the possibilities
of s > þ and þ > t? We also have s > t or s > th from SE Asia
(unspecified Chinese dialect, 'Tay' - an unidentified dialect of Tho,
and Vietnamese), which should be good enough.

Richard

***

Of course I can.

But that is not the question.

You are describing a two-stage process that would require an intermediary
between Nostratic and Egyptian that had /*þ/. Are you prepared to assert
that?

I think not.

As for your Chinese example, I consider it so vague as to be meaningless.

Patrick

***