Re: Negau

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
> >
> > Finally, STC reconstructs yet another supposedly unrelated root in
> > this semantic area, *blin,~*plin, 'full' (#142), underlying such
> > forms as WB prañ´ 'be full', phrañ´ 'fill'; Mikir plen, 'be
> > full', peplen, 'fill', etc. From what has already been said, it
> > should be clear that this set represents the very same etymon as
> > #138 and #352
>
>
> I can't help but wonder whether these Sino-Tibetan words might be
> borrowings from Sanskrit (cf. WB <prañ>/<phrañ>, Mikir
> <plen>/peplen> with Skt <pra:nah.> "filled, full"). If not
> Sanskrit, maybe some other IE source (perhaps the ancestors of
> Tocharian?) unless you know this to be out of the question. From
> here I also wonder whether the "flat" words might not also be due
> to borrowing rather than shared heritage. I know that Matisoff is
> arguing against this idea, but I suggest this idea ought to be
> carefully considered. I don't have the means or the knowledge to
> do it myself, which I should, nevertheless I am putting this idea
> out there.

> Andrew
> ==========
> My point of view about PIE *l is that this "surface" correspondence
> covers more than one proto-phoneme.
> When PIE *l corresponds with PAA *l as in *pel = full = Arabic
> Hafil = Touareg balal,
> the expected correspondence in ST should be yod.

Why?

> For that matter, these ST roots are highly dubious.

In what way are they dubious?

> There are at least two possibilities :
> 1. all ST words are loanwords from IE languages,
> 2. ST words may also be borrowings from SouthEast Asian languages
> that keep *l unyodized.

Explain.

> In any case, you have to be aware that Matisoff is not a very
> reliable ST expert.

Because?
Besides, it doesn't matter much, since the root reconstructions are
Benedict's.


Torsten