Miguel:
>According to M�ller, these alternations show
>that IE and Sem. are related. There are, in any case, a sufficiently large
>number of such alternations (D ~ DH ~ T / D ~ T. ~ T) to explain why both
>Illich-Svitych and Bomhard could each come up with a sizeable number of
>Nostratic etymologies (involving PIE/PAA), while using different tables of
>correspondences (Illich-Svitych: T=T./T, D=T, DH=D, >Bomhard: T=T, D=T.,
>DH=D). Not to mention M�ller's more complex scheme (approx. T=T/D, D=T,
>DH=T.).
Ooh, Nostratic? May I interject? Why are we speaking of
M�ller as though he were today an active linguist?
I personally do not welcome these kinds of "easy" sound
correspondances in Nostratic. Fred Hamori uses the
"alternation" concept to come up with his own dubious
results where definite coincidences are woven into
fake etymologies:
http://www2.4dcomm.com/millenia/lang.htm
I've sided now with Bomhard's "hard" sound correspondances,
particularly because he at least acknowledges that IE is
closer to Uralic and Altaic than to "Semitic", which
afterall is only a single branch of AfroAsiatic. By this
acknowledgement, I believe more precise (preciser?) sound correspondances
can be developped. Illich-Svitych's
works are old, if not as deceased as him <:S The field of
"Indo-Semitic" is really not going anywhere. Bomhard
connects IE *d/*g/(*b) ultimately to AA ejectives and
doesn't speak of these "alternations" like a good little boy.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com