Re: Mitanni and Matsya

----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 11:34 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Mitanni and Matsya


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> I can wholehearted agree: there are too many *wer-'s but that
> is because some of them represent early PIE **ber- rather than
> *wer-.

How do you propose to prove that any of them are from an older
'ber-'?

***

By pointing at cognates in related languages where *b, or its descendant,
have not been spirantized.

PIE *b = Egyptian <p> and <f> (not <w>) = Sumerian <b>

***

> In any case, the comparative evidence (e.g. HEgy <wr>, 'large',
> presents the unextended root from Nostratic.

So-called Nostratic "evidence" is unacceptable. The Nostratic
theory is an interesting but unproven idea. As of today P.I.E.
has no known relatives.

David

***

You are many years behind the times.

Patrick

***