Re: [tied] (unknown)

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] (unknown)


> 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)


> OK. I see "most" is not a very nice word for your taste.

Not if it's at odds with the facts.

> 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?

No, but I'm afraid only lingists are qualified to judge where a given language belong. A non-linguist (like the ancient authors you cite) did not use "Thracian' as a linguistic designation. Anyone who came from the general area or vicinity of Thrace was "Thracian". We still use such geographical labels (the "Baltic" nations including e.g. the Estronians, the "Caucasian" or "Papuan" languages, etc.).

> 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?

I've told you before that all Satem languages also have velars aplenty: native reflexes of the *K and *KW series (only the *K^ series was fronted), velars in loanwords, etc. Your original claim was that there were languages where *g^ was Satemised but the other palatovelars weren't. You still haven't provided an example.

Piotr