Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>> 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
I understand now. You took the "g^" in the absolutely way.
I told you I dont know ( why should I say I know?) which one of these
"g" became palatalised and in witch conditions.
Maybe there is none since the "z" can be from palatalization of "d" or
from sonorisation of "s".
I don't think is correct to say there was a thracian "z" because
somewhere there is a Latviann "s"
Duridanov shows an interesting paralelism:
Thracian : genoukla (meaning unknown)
latvian :dzenuklis= Sumpf
Alex shows Latin : genuculum ( knie)
So, what now? What to think about if the meaning is unknown?
I can discuse the whole list of Duridanov including dacian "Paspigios"
and lithuanian "Paspiriai" but romanian "Pas pe gios". Do we have
something from here?
I gues, we dont. It is still to unclear the relationship for making a
definitive assumption about the nature of a language specyaly when you
have "centos" in this language ( See Aulucentos & Co.)