Re: [tied] Catching up again...

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Catching up again...


> On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:19:36 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
> <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>
> >Miguel:
> >>How so? An analysis *woi-no- from *wei- "to turn, to wind" is
> >>perfectly defendable (in fact, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov do so, IIRC).
> >
> >Gamkrelidze and Ivanov do many things, don't they... some not so good.
Say
> >no to an Anatolian-based homeland, boys and girls :) I'll admit to this
> >*wei-no- idea being _very weakly_ defendable on the surface but we can't
> >honestly call it a done-deal. Piotr's comments on this are valid.
>
> They are. I was just surprised that you emphatically claimed the wine
> word was *not* analyzable in IE, when the IE analysis (applicable both
> to *woino- and to the Anatolian variant wiyana-) is the only analysis
> I'm aware of. Honest question, again: what's the analysis in Semitic?

The Hittite wiyana- would point to *wyono- ? Considering
WEINO-/WOINO-/WYONO-/WNS^/*BNS' we should expect a *WEN(A)S^ / WIN(A)S^ ?


> > 2. The word spread AGAINST the flow of farmers coming
> > OUT of Anatolia during c.6000 BCE spread INTO Anatolia.
> >
> > Yeah, right. Add two cups of alien conspiracies
> > and stir gently.
>
> Playing the devil's advocate, this option is not crazy at all: did or
> did not the words "potato", "chocolate", "tomato", "maize", etc.
> spread AGAINST the flow of colonizers coming OUT of Europe into the
> Americas INTO Europe?
>
Powerful argument!