Re: *dan-

--- In cybalist@egroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

>
> That Torsten person stated:
> >Bomhard (IndoEuropean and the Nostratic Hypothesis, root 83) has

1, >which

> >he relates to a Proto-Kartvelian *den-/*din- "to run, to >flow"),

*dn- "to

> >melt" (BTW, afaik IE replaced a Caucasian language >exactly in the

*d-n-

> >river area, which doesn't make things easier),
>
> Cool, you have the book! Let me make things easier. I always am

skeptical of

> those roots of Bomhard's that only contain evidence from AA and

Kartvelian

> (the two oldest branches of Nostratic).
>
> While the sound correspondances check out okay, we should ask

ourselves

> where the rest of the correspondances between the oldest branches

of

> Nostratic and IndoEuropean is. Where are the roots attested in the
> "in-between" languages: Sumerian, Elamite, Dravidian, Uralic,

AltaicGilyak,

> EskimoAleut or ChukchiKamchatkan? It would seem far likelier given

the

> present data that either the roots are coincidence, there are

errors, or the

> root has been borrowed into IE via Kartvelian or Semitish (yes, the

Semitish

> language again :P).
>
> The concept of "primordial waters" and the story of creation out of

water

> appears to me to be the core part of a EuroAnatolian mythology

circa

> 7000-5000 BCE, a hybrid of European-Semitoid hybrid of beliefs,

centered in

> a land where Semitish (an AA language) would have been spoken. The

original

> IE myths, I figure, were more aligned with Steppe shamanistic

beliefs. I can

> see how mythological concepts could travel and lend *dhen- to the

IE

> vocabulary via Semitish. I've already argued with Piotr on some of

those

> Semitoid myth terms that appear to have taken a trip into the IE

language

> (*nebhos = *napis^tu-, *pexwr = *ba`lu-, *xste:r = *`aTtaru-

/`aTtaritu-,

> etc).
>
> As for *d-n-, I was under the impression that this was *dexn-

(*da:n-). So,

> we should be writing *d-x-n-, nej? But, when I think about this for

a

> minute, I can't help but notice that *dhen- and **dxen- (a

hypothetical

> alternative accent for *dexn- that we were talking about earlier)

look alot

> alike.
>
> This "*dx > *dh" mix-up is exactly the same phenom as what I

suspect for an

> Early Late IE *lxudxros "(IndoTyrrhenian) people", a thematic

version of an

> earlier *lxudéxr, becoming the more familiar *leudhros.
> *dxen- > *dhen-
> *lxudxros > *leudhros
>
> Intriguing. Comments?
>
> - gLeN
>
>

Yes. Enclitic ",no?" translates as ",ikke?" in Danish (", not?").
I'm not quite up to date on the hysterico-protero-etc stuff, my
linguistics studies were way back. Is dH -> dh permissible? Is that
what you're saying?
I have been watching your IndoTyrrhenian stuff with distant
prejudiced interest, since I am a firm believer in a theory of my own
making (or rather, pieced together from the writings of Stephen
Oppenheimer and Paul Manansala (on the net), that people from the
vanished Sundaland (aka Indonesian Sea) started (von Däniken-like)
the culture and hence expansion of IE, AA and Elamo-Dravidian, and
with my head full of that, I didn't know how to fit in your
hypothesis. Also, I think much of the mythological stuff is very
similar to Polynesian ditto, but read the book "Eden in the East". I
recommend it.

Torsten