>AC : b/ni?
>I don't think le -? final glottal stop comes from -r. Otherwise, how >do
>you explain the normal -r in AC ?
Oh, glottal stop. Hmm, nonetheless, perhaps a real -r stems from a word
conforming originally to the pattern *CVCVrV in DC, where all is eventually
crunched into the second syllable as usual. The *-r would be preserved in AC
because of the following vowel. In *m-lir, the *-r is obviously exposed and
subject to omission or the next best thing - a glottal stop.
>The tib. and AC forms are different both in vocalism and in initial.
>That is two much to make any serious comparison unless you know other
>comparable exceptions.
I don't. You're right but I'll save that one for now since it's better than
nothing
Dene-Caucasian SinoTib AC Basque
*tLu "we" *la b/la "I" gu
*Nu "you" *ny@ b/na? "you" hi
b/naj? "yo'll"
*ni "I" (erg) *Na b/ngaj? "we" ni
*di "he, she, it" *t@ b/ty d- (d-aki-t)
*ma "do not!" *ma/*m@- b/ma, b/myts
It seems obvious that any original plural pronouns would have been confused
at some point with the singular, giving rise to b/la for "I" instead of for
"we" (*tLu) but I think that b/ngaj? is showing that a form *Na for "I"
(*ni) must have existed at some point to produce this derivative plural,
existing alongside *la. I wouldn't connect *ma to AC a/put and a/py unless
these forms were originally *mCut and *mC@, respectively. AC b/ty seems best
with *di (Also Athapascan *d@-, used as a basis for obviative; the "d-class"
of verbs found in Burushaski).
Dene-Caucasian SinoTib AC Basque
*m-lir "ear" *nli? b/ni? belarri
*m-hutL "eye" *mriwk b/mriwk begi
*m-NuN "heart" *sny@... b/sym bihotz
*m-kug "leg" *kuk b/kak --
Hmm, lookin' good so far in terms of the consonants but I haven't figured
out the vowel pattern in AC yet, obviously. The form for "heart" seems to
have an s- prefix instead of the expected *m-.
Is the real DC form something more like **(m-)saNuN, I wonder, whereupon
Vasconic *mihahiz > *bihahzi > bihotz?
Gotta think about that one. But the other three cognate series are great.
One question, how does AC b/kak become Cantonese /geuk/ - Explain the vowel.
Dene-Caucasian SinoTib AC Basque
*sul-mu "three" *sl@... slym hiru
*li-mu "four" *li b/s-li lau
*piNu "five" *pN@ a/nga? bost
*rutL "six" *truk b/rok (sei)
*sulrit "seven" *snit b/snit sortzi "8"
*mnrit "eight" *prit b/pret bederatzi "9"
*hmsi "ten" *psi b/gip hamar
Hmm, alright. Perhaps we should have ST *psi reflecting Tibetan /bcu/. The
form in -u might be explained as influence with "nine"? I have trouble
explaining the -p in AC. I've again reflected Tibetan, connecting b- with a
*p- in ST *psi. This *p, by the way, also reflects the earlier *m in the
disyllabic DC form *hmsi. Perhaps *hmsi > *?msi > *psi. This *m- to *p- is
the same pattern as in *mnrit > *prit (AC pret). What's more, I seem to
recall the unrelated language Gilyak having a number along the same vein...
was it /mxo/?
Prehistoric borrowing perhaps?
I am reluctant to give a form for "nine" since it is not conclusive. What is
certain however is that the ST form has a direct relation to the same word
in NWC (again, a DC language) with a form *Gw@, if my memory serves me
correctly.
Dene-Caucasian SinoTib AC Basque
*cartLuk?u *sl@?k b/lha? sagu "mouse"
"rodent"
*hu-sil "water" *sluj? b/lhuj? ur
*uha "rain" *wa? b/wa? (elur)
>this one is preferrably compared with "water", incidentally. b/lhuj? >comes
>probably from lhur?. A new vasco-AC etymology
Huh? Where does the /-r?/ come from? I think you mean that b/lhuj? from
*sluj? so that we can explain the otherwise problematic lh- sound, just as
AC /lha/ is from *sla? "rodent", yes?
Basque /elur/ has nothing much to do with this since it would have to come
from a Vasconic form *il-uz(a)ri (> *ilu:ri > elur). The second element
appears to be the word for "water" (Basque ur) with an unknown initial
element.
The AC form b/wa? is beautiful for my evil purposes. The /?/ can easily be
explained as coming from *h (as in *hmsi > *?msi > *psi "ten"). But the form
could also reflect a DC *uhi with *-i instead (I originally based the form
on NEC forms meaning "to rain" often with a d- prefix. Compare also Swahili
m-vua "rain".) The latter form, *uhi, would explain the -a- as a
metathesized final *i. Thus *uhi > *u?i > *ui? > *wa? > AC b/wa?. Similarly,
perhaps *m-hutL "eye" > *mruk > *mrikW > AC mriwk (metathesis of final *kW)
and *sulmu "three" > *slm@ > *sl@... > slym (metathesis of *-m@). There seems
to be a consistent metathesis in final -C(V)/-V after syllabic contraction.
Now, for some reason, we have ST *sl- instead of *sVl as one should expect
for "water" based on the syllabic contraction rule. And what's with the
extra junk at the end of the AC form with /-uj?/? It's almost as if it were
a compound word, perhaps of the form:
**husil-uhi "rain water" > *(?)slu?i > *sluj? (<- metathesis!)
Hmm, interesting stuff. I'm rather disappointed that you can't find a
corresponding form for *buN "ruminant, cow, ox, bull...". That's my favorite
one. Oh well. Back to the library I go. :)
- gLeN
______________________________________________________