Re: [tied] One.

A Greek-Slavic archaism is believable, an shared innovative "isogloss" is
not (in my never very humble opinion).

Peter

> >>>Following the Greek-Armenian-Slavic connection, one is tempted ...
> >>
> >>How realistic is the idea of a Greek-Armenian-Slavic connection without

I-I?

> >>(a) Greek-Armenian-I-I connections are well established. This suggests
> >>Slavic does not have such strong links to Greek as I-I does.
> >>And
> >>(b) Greek shows no sign of satemisation, although Armenian, I-I and

Slavic

> >>do. This suggests Greek separates off while I-I and Slavic are still in
> >>contact.
> >>
> >>Both of these would prima facie make a sprach-bund of

Greek-Armenain-Slavic

> >>without I-I rather unlikely, wouldn't they?
> >
> >One isogloss does not a Sprachbund make.
>
> Especially since, as I forgot to mention, the whole thing may be an
> archaism, viz. a Greek-Armenian-Slavic-Hittite isogloss.
>
> In nAIE, pronominal stems have a strange infix *-sm- in the Abl., Dat.
> and Loc. singular. It may well be identical to the root *sem- "1".
>
> In Hittite, *-sm- does not occur, but we have instead (in the Dat/Loc,
> and sometimes in the Abl. and Ins., both in the singular and, it has
> to be said (analogically?) in the plural) a formant *-eda(n)-
> [dem.prn. DL ke:dani, ape:dani; I. ke:danda, ke:t, GDL pl. kedas,
> ape:das; rel.prn. DL kuedani, GDLpl. kuedas; p.prn. Abl. ammedaz,
> anzedas, tuedaz, sumedaz]. AFAIK, it's unknown how the Hitite word
> for "one" was pronounced. It has a pronominal declension and goes:
> N. 1-as (1-is), Acc/n. 1-an, G. 1-e:l, DL 1-e:dani, Abl. 1-e:(d)az(a).
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>