Re: [tied] kentum and satem

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] kentum and satem


> ekwo > esb= false since there is no evidence, just a baseless
> assumption until now.

Let me just tell you it isn't half as baseless as the junk you have paraded
as "Thracian" on this list. Esb- is an onomastic element in Thracian. We
have other convincing examples of *w > Thr. b (perhaps = v), so Esb- makes
perfect sense as the Thracian counterpart of Gk. Hippo-, Skt. As'va- or
Iranian Aspa- in personal names. If you prefer to disbelieve it, suit
yourself.

> 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.

You've conveniently ignored -diza. No idea why it has a <z>? Not even an ad
hoc one?

Piotr