Re: [tied] Nostr.? *w-t- , *w-g-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:57:40 -0000, "tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >Manaster Ramer: Exploring the Notratic Hypothesis
> >in
> >Salmon & Joseph (eds.): Nostratic: Siftin the Evidence
> >
> >has as among a handful of loans into(?) IE and Finno-Ugric:
> >
> >*wetV- "water"
> >*wegV- "to carry"
> >*wetV- "to lead"
> >
> >which is odd, since I have those same roots in my site (as usual).
> >How did mr. Ramer know that?
>
> They are not Manaster-Ramer's but Illich-Svitych's reconstructions.
> What is being discussed is the difference of opinion between
> Illich-Svitych, which sees them as words inherited from
> Proto-Nostratic, and e.g. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov or Ringe, who state
> that they (and some others) are borrowings from PIE into Uralic

(PFU).

>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

So it is! (hrmph). I must learn to hold a book in my left and type
with my right hand, like Pres. Ford. Alternatively, I shouldn't jump
to keyboards and conclusions too rashly.
Which all matters little in the end. You may put down that Torsten
Pedersen thinks they were ultimately borrowed from: (tadah!)
Austronesian.

Torsten