Miguel:
>So something like:
>
>**s�xwalna > **s�xw[@]lr
>**saxw�lna-si > **s[@]xw�ln[@]s^
Oh, no. Now Miguel is not only corrupting generally accepted theories on
Nostratic and IE but has now moved on to corrupt my own. Either get your own
working theory, Miguel, or work WITH my theory. Your above journey into
madness ignores rules on Mid IE penultimate accent that explains so well the
accentual alternations between stem & suffix and it ignores vowel
correspondances with Late IE. This ending of *-na would have shifted the
accent to the second syllable in **saxwalna - this is an undesirable
reconstruction.
Wouldn't it be more productive to work WITH the consensus instead of
fighting it? You reconstruct an ergative suffix for Nostratic when the
general consensus is that Nostratic was a very analytical language. You
claim that *nem-, *em- and *yem- are the same verb in contrary to mainstream
IE opinion when they don't even have the same meaning let alone phonetics.
And all for what gain? Vanity? It's certainly not for logic because your
theories are not immediately plausible.
>That's a curious statement from someone who has just explained >*s�xwl,
>*sxw�ns as analogical after the -r/-n- heteroclitics. I'd >say Latin
><sanguis> proves that the <-k> in Vedic is *not* secondary, >just like
>Greek <he:par>, <he:patos> proves the <-t> in <y�krt> to be >original
How so? I'm following what has been written on the subject and common sense.
I would expect that you do the same. Latin proves nothing. Newsflash: Latin
-g- doesn't correspond to Sanskrit -k for starters and neither does the rest
of the phonetics of /sanguis/ with /asrk/! Are you blind? Let's be serious
here. Stop ranting nonsense.
>See IEW p. 505 *iem- "halten, zusammenhalten etc." for some Sanskrit
>forms. The Slavic forms are listed under *em-.
Exactly. As I have said: "There is no **yem- like you expect with your
"dual-state" rule." Of course there is *yem- as in *Yemos, the chthonic
sleeping giant, brother of *Manus, the first man. *Yemos is akin to Indic
Yama. We all know this. We also know that *yemos means "twin". Your quote
fails to mention Norse forms (Ymir) or a possible Italic one (Remus).
The verb *yem- is NOT however given the same meaning as *nem- or *em- and is
clearly a different verb altogether. Although I'm not exactly sure about the
meaning given here, the German words you quote are saying "to hold, to hold
together". This has little convincing semantic relationship to "to
distribute, allot" or "to take". There isn't even motivation to believe that
they are random phonetic alternations of a single **n^ because you have
failed to show the proof of these alternations using a long list of minimal
pairs or triplets.
Even the concept of chaotic phonemic "tri-splitting" is hard to take without
doing a *wom-. This doesn't occur in actual human languages.
And you will see no IE **suius anywhere in competent literature so you're
wasting your breath, fighting the inevitable collapse and vanity-bruising
modification of your insufficient theories. Your devil's advocate needs to
lift some weights and eat a sensible diet. :P
- gLeN
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com