Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> We know for sure the meaning of Thracian <-diza>, for example, and its
> derivation from PIE *dHeig^Ho- is practically self-evident. Note that
> in this word a non-front vowel follows, so the palatalisation is
> purely Satemic. Even if we exclude uncertain etymologies (like
> <re:sos> from *(h3)re:g^-, which might or might not be correct) and
> ambiguous cases of Thracian <s>, <z> before front vowels (like
> <-zenis> from *-g^enh1e:s, cf. Gk. -gene:s), some irreducible evidence
> in favour of Thracian being Satem remains; e.g. esb- < *h1ek^wo-, (the
> River) Arzos < *h2arg^o- (a common hydronymic element).
>
> Piotr
ekwo > esb= false since there is no evidence, just a baseless
assumption until now.
arg^o > arz= true? see the following rivers:
Angros, Agrianes, Alganos, Erginias, Brongos, Piengas
I just can see there is "Cg" and nothing more. I am not able to say if
there is an "Cg^" or "Cg" and I do not have any testimony what should
have meant the name of the river for be sure that "arz" is from "arg^".
Since there is a rivulet in Rom. called " Pârâul Ars" which make a
nonsense linguisticaly but it has his history why it is called so, I
very doubt the linguistic speculation about "arg^" > "arz", specialy
when the ancient form "Ordesos" is in actualy Rom. "Arges" and there is
no way of changing from "d" to "g" back again.
As I very often mentioned, it seems though that indeed this "g^" is the
one who went g^> d > z when followed by front wovels , but more as this
"satem" aspect I was unable to find out. If for some linguist this is an
irreductible evidence, then let it be their credo.
Am sorry to contradict you but from all I read until now from linguistic
works ( I guess I read a lot about regarding thracians) there is nothing
irreductible, just a lot of speculations, unfortunatelly.
So, there is nothing about "k'", "kW" for seing the satem aspect of the
language and it seems this was the question of Alexander Stolbov or I
missunderstood it?
Alex