Re: Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern Caucasian and Indo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <

>
> But do you (Arnaud) still say that PIE had no *-tl- sequences in any
> words, that they always > *-tr-?
> AJ
>
> =======
> I have not changed my mind.
>
> All these examples have the peculiarity of having a laryngeal

before the

> suffix.
> s-neH1-t-
> buH2-t-
> arH3-t
> But this may not have any importance.
>
> I also disagree that arklas is traceable to PIE.
> this would mean that PIE was neolithic,
> something I disagree with.

I don't understand how this would mean that PIE was neolithic. And
do you mean that you think that PIE was older or younger than
neolithic?

>
> I suppose the alternation -tel-/-tr- which I consider was once

allophonic,

> became allomorphic in a second time.
> So out of -tel- you can recreate -tel-/-tl-
> and out of -ter- you can recreate -ter-/tr-

I think you mean "and out of *-tr-* you can recreate -ter-/tr-", and
I understand what you're saying here, I see your point. But in
*ag^tla: (which is what I think the original topic was?) its
formation must have been long enough after the *-tl->-tr- change that
it wouldn't have happened in this word.

>
> The only thing that really proves something is that
> Semitic *tel is reflected by PIE treyes "three".
> there is not a single word in Indo-European that is **tl- "three".
> This is a cognate, not a word that can be created about any time in

the

> history of each Indo-European language.
>

Makes sense to me; are any other Cybalist members convinced?

AJ