Re: [tied] Re: Anatolia in 7500BC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Anatolia in 7500BC


>
> Piotr:
> >This can well be a loan from early Indo-Iranian or pre-IIr (*ec'wa-
> >or *ac'wa-, still with an affricate > Proto-Abkhaz-Adyghe *cH&, as
> >well as Proto-Dagestanian *Wci).
>
> Glen:
> Alright, but then...
>
> 1) Why is accented *e- in pre-IIr *ec'wa- not present in
> neither AA nor Dagestanian?

One possibility: <a-> reanalysed as an article, cf. Abkhaz a-c'& '_the_ horse'. More generally, those languages had minimal vowel systems, and features usually carried by vowels were ceded to the syllable margins; in *Wci, for example, *W symbolises a "floating" labial prosody (not always reflected in the modern languages), rather than a segment. The thing to be borrowed would have borrowed the consonantal shell, stripped of the vowels. Vocalically enriched reflexes look better: what do you say to Akhvakh icwa or Andi ica, for example?

>
> 2) How does IIr *-a- become *-i in Dagestinian?
>
> 3) Is there a plausible native etymology for *ekwo- if it
> is not loaned from another language?

We cannot etymologise ad infinitum. The ancestors of the IEs may have been familiar with wild horses for thousands of years before PIE, and there is no particular reason why the "original meaning" of the term should be recoverable (unless it's "swift", cf. *o:k^u-). What does *h2rtk^os "mean" (apart from meaning 'bear'?). Then, if the word is a loan in PIE, does it have a plausible "native" etymology in your Abadha family?

> >What do you base your reconstruction of Proto-AbAd "5" on?
>
> The AA form appears to be *sxW however I've concluded that
> AA's numeral system is inherited and is related to that of
> SinoTibetan. There are of course differences which I think
> can be explained as due to confusion with word class prefixes
> in numerals. AA certainly has *-xW which relates to the *-Nu
> in SinoTibetan. However, AA has *s- and ST has *p-. I think
> *p- is the original "prefix". Thus I reconstruct earlier
> Abadha *pNw (*N = nasal velar) for later AbAd *sxW.

I see. It's rather convenient not to know the Hattic word ;)

Piotr