--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> If it's a wanderwort, then of course the question arises whether
the historical prestige of Ancient Egyptian justifies the assumption
that Egyptian *must* be the source. For methodological reasons I'm
also against lumping together *per(n)-, *p(o)lh1-, *bHerg^H- and a
variety of Nostratic "cognates" with loosely matching meanings just
because they happen to contain a substring definable as [labial stop]V
[rhotic/lateral].
>
> Piotr
>
>
Actually, wanderwort is what I propose for this lump. Would your
methodological reasons or similar apply in this case too?
BTW, I remember a remark somewhere to the effect that early
Mediterranean languages (Eteo-Cypriot?) show a vacillation r/n/l,
which would account for the r/l part. So do some Austronesian
languages.
Torsten