Re: [tied] IE numbers

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:32:53, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>Miguel:
>>The hypothesis that it may be from *kemt-, with (a) assimilation
>>*kemt-kwe > *kenkwe > (a) kwenkwe, as in Italo-Celtic-Germanic;
>
>Look, Miguel. I'm in no mood to talk with people who try to rewrite
>IndoEuropean linguistics.

Talking to yourself is to be avoided in any case, at least out loud.

>>What's this <t:> anyway?
>
>Please search the archives. It is a "voiceless fortis".
>Note:
>
> Mid IE Late IE
> voiceless lenis *t *t
> voiceless fortis *t: *d
> voiced *d *dh

Impossible. Your "lenis" consonant develops into a fortis in each and
every IE language known to mankind, while your "fortis" develops into
a voiced (lenis) in all IE languages but Germanic and Armenian. And
the voiced consonant acquires aspiration for no good reason.

>>> *dus- "bad"
>>> < *deu-s- "to be abandoned"
>>> < *deu-s- "to be alone"
>>> < *t:ëu "one"
>>
>>Any reason why we should believe this?
>
>Note also Latin /unificare/.

Why? 1. it's not Classical Latin, 2. it doesn't mean "bad".