From: tgpedersen
Message: 60862
Date: 2008-10-13
>Of words I'm certain are substrate? The archives are full of words I
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 10/12/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> > Subject: Re: [tied] Present participle
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 6:49 PM
> > >
> > > Oh, I see. But another question I have is, if a root is
> > > encountered only in Italic, Germanic, and Slavic, does that mean
> > > we should probably reject it as being from PIE? I personally
> > > feel that that is being rather harsh, especially when it is so
> > > easy for languages to lose items of vocabulary (cf. Modern
> > > English vs. Old English especially, but also many modern
> > > European languages compared with their ancestors). Is there
> > > another reason why you do not favour (a deliberate choice of
> > > word here) the idea of a PIE root *ghow- (etc.) besides the
> > > fact that if it occurred, it is only corroborated in Italic,
> > > Germanic, and Slavic?
> >
> > Not 'should'. The fact that a particular IE word is encountered
> > only in eg. Europe might make one suspect the word is substrate,
> > but it's no proof. It takes more than that.
> >
>
> Meillet had a short list of such words. Torsten, with all your
> resources, you certainly have a lot more examples.