From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60591
Date: 2008-10-05
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> ==========
> 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?
============
A ST root cognate to PAA *p_l = PIE *p_l should be *p_y
otherwise, I consider it does not work.
To say nothing about the unpleasant voiced / voiceless alternation,
which is an open-door to create phonetic fancies.
Arnaud
=========
> 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.
========
It's possible SE Asian languages keep *l (=PPA *l = PIE *l) unchanged.
I have not checked this.
I consider all Northern Asia languages should have yod for (=PPA *l = PIE
*l)
Uralic, Turcic, Yukaghir, Chinese have yod.
Languages that keep *l as l or r should preferably be removed from ST.
Arnaud
===========
> 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
==========
Well, then
the master was not very good and the disciple does not look like an
improvement.
Is there anything in ST studies we should remember Benedict for ?
Arnaud