Re: [tied] IE numbers

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:15:38, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>Piotr:
>>We also have the unalternating *-tor- suffix of agent nouns and the
>>heteroclitic *-tr/*-t(e)n- of neuters (like *h1ei-tr 'route'), very
>>popular in Hittite . The less securely reconstructed "woman" suffix
>>*-sor-/*-sr- and the conjectural kinship suffix *-h2ter- have no *-n-
>>alternants. If heteroclisy ever occurred in active/animate
>>paradigms, it must have been eliminated very early.
>
>Perhaps my question wasn't specific enough. I meant to enquire into
>the existence of an inanimate *-r suffix derivable from Mid IE *-r
>alone... not *-er- (< *-ere), *-tor- (*-ta-(e)re) or -sor-
>(< *esare) suffixes.

But *kWetwores is *animate*, and ends in -ores, which puts it squarely
in the category of words that follow the paradigm sg. -o:r, -r-ós,
-er-m; pl. -ores, -erom, etc.

>Now to your theory, Miguel. A long list of problems might include
>the following:
>
> - *kW > *p(W) is much more attested and intuitive
> than *pW > *kW

So?

> - strict explanation and proof of proposed early sound
> changes from Nostratic to IE and from Nostratic to
> AfroAsiatic (both vocalic and consonantal) remain
> undefined, although very necessary for your proposals

My views on Nostr -> IE are pretty well defined. AA is another
matter, since there are *no* solid reconstructions of AA yet.

> - it is generally agreed that, if IE and AfroAsiatic are
> related, they are seperated by many moons (probably as
> much as 15,000 years). Therefore, any direct comparisons
> between IE and AA without more closer-to-home attestations
> in languages such as Uralic, Altaic, EskimoAleut or even
> Dravidian are hardly credible in both IE and Nostratic
> circles

A priori reasoning.

> - Reliance on Dolgopolsky's reconstructions which are in
> themselves filled with linguistic "variables", parentheses
> and unestablished and/or unlikely sound changes with
> general disregard for internal classification and
> reconstruction of intermediate stages of the language
> groups involved

I'm obviously not relying on Dolgopolsky's reconstructions.