Richard Wordingham wrote:

What do you mean by 'introduced'?  If you mean came in as loan words, then
Hittite hapalzil and parSur can't be Nostratic.  Or are you talking about a
more restricted swathe of land?

maybe some people moved into the Mideast-anatolia region with liquids.

What is the status of 'ash'?  Turkish?  Turkic?  I presume below that it's
I think it is Turkic. Others may disagree.

What makes you think English 'parch' can be an inherited word?
(1) If you had a dictionary with any pretensions to give etymologies, you'd
find its origin is unknown.  You are thus 'reaching down' with a vengeance.
(2) If you had a good dictionary, you'd find that the best, but rejected
guessses, made it a compound with the Latin prefix per-.
(3) If you could accept that comparative linguists have *some* idea of what
they're talking about, you'd know that inherited English p- ought to imply
PIE *b-, but that any instance of  PIE *b- is highly suspect.

So then it must be borrowed. Is that what you are saying?

Either borrowed or 'invented'.  English 'parch' first appears in the 14th
century, and cannot be traced back to anything earlier.

I think lots of words in English cannot be traced back.  Did you seriously read Watkins' book?
See how funny some of those etymologies are.

See my post on Aturan on the derivation of "elbow", or try Watkins' derivation of "estuary'"
and dozens of others.

Are you just being mischievous in quoting German essen 'eat'?  It is a
perfectly regular derivative of PIE *h1ed 'eat'.

No. Why?  Persian has  "ash"

German essen 'eat' is merely part of the evidence for PIE *h1ed 'eat'.
German 'essen' does not add to the plausibility of PIe *h1ed and Turkish(?)
ash being cogante (other than be evidencing what sort of sound changes are
I am not sure about the laryngeals. SEcondly,  It is not necessary for it to be from -d- e.g. what if
it was more like -dh- or from an earlier -th-. The point is that some patterns have been collected, but
there are also other patterns.

For example, it is said that Altaic had an initial-p that changed to a bilabial fricative and disappeared
but apparently along the way it also became h in some places. One of the classics is Doerfer's *pOkUrz (ox)
from which he gets OkUz, OkUr, hOkur, hOkUz etc. Now it so happens that this word looks too much
like pecus (IE cattle) to be an accident. So why cannot the same thing happen to *parsh? *pash? And
what if it had an even earlier form which could have given rise to eat.

PS. There is no Altaic. Clauson showed this circa 1950.

By Persian 'ash', do you mean Farsi a:sh /AS/ 'stew'?  What's its history?
How do we know it isn't a loan from Turkish?  Farsi has been subject to some
pretty heavy Turkish influence, and the meaning 'stew' doesn't seem to keep
its words very well.
There are those who claim it is Persian, but then they always claim those things.

In fact, I think
Khaladj has hash (instead of ash) adding  further evidence that the
bilabial-F/B (which still exists in Japanese) changed to h in Turkic
(already theorized by
Turkologists) and still retained in Khaladj.  It is also pretty clear that
kap (cup) etc is originally Turkic or Prototurkic ...

What distinction are you making here?
Please see above. I gave other examples before e.g. pelik/pilek > elig > el

PS. This word el also shows up in Watkins' derivation of elbow. If you find my post on
Aturan languages you will enjoy it. There are lots of quotes there from Watkins.


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Mark Hubey