Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] (unknown)
>
>
>> It is said the phrygian have been thracians. At least most scholars
>> make this connection
>
> Most? Who, for example?
OK. I see "most" is not a very nice word for your taste. I will replace
it with "some". Tomacheck for examples, to give only one name. But I
want to ask you just for the sake of the clarity. Do you consider
"scholars" just the linguists?
How we have to consider the people who have let us the ancient
testimonies like Strabo, Plinius, Xenophon , Meandru, Heodot & Co? Just
simply observers and writers? In this case I have to apologise for using
the word "shcolars" because I was mainly referring to the ancient
sources and not to actually scholars .
>
>> A such answer let open what about the languages which palatalised
>> just "*g^" and did not palatalised properly the rest
>
> Such as ... ?
>
> Piotr
Such a "germisara" for instance. Such as "singidava","argedava" ,
gagana, gazuro, Sarmizegetusa, orgame, wtc.
As for "k", you have plenty of it: "Dekebalos, Dekaineos, Kotinii,
Kumidava, Karsidava, it doesn't make any sense to put all the glosses
here. How do you explain the "recognised" satemism of the Thracian with
so many "g" and "k" there?