Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> In my opinion, "Grimm's Law" in Thracian is a myth. What we have good
> evidence for is the aspirated pronunciation of voiceless stops,
> especially of /t/, written <tH> in Greek sources. The aspiration of
> /p/ and /k/ is marked only occasionally, which may mean that it weak
> in comparison with that of Gk. <pH> and <kH>. Interestingly, Thracian
> /p/ could be be used to substitute Gk. <pH> (<pulpu-> for
> <pHilippo->). There are quite a few Thracian onomastic elements with
> initial <p-> (recorded with Gk. <p>) plausibly assigned to etyma with
> PIE *p (not *b, of course).
> It seems to me that the plain and aspirated voiced rows simply fell
> together in Thracian, as they did in Celtic or Albanian. Additionally,
> PIE *w became Thr. <b>. Quite possibly the Thr. /b, d, g/ series had
> fricative allophones as in Spanish, Proto-Germanic or post-Classical
> Greek; that would have made the *w/*b(H) merger more natural.
> The Thracian reflexes of *k^ and *g^(H) are spelt <s> and <z> (zeta);
> their probable phonetic values are /s/ and /z/. As opposed to Albanian
> and Armenian, which have special developments of *k^w, Thracian shows
> simply <sb> ~ <zb>, as supposedly in the 'horse' word.
Since it seems you are pointing allways to that ominos "Esbenos" and you
are convinced about the fact this name meant horse, be my way, belive
it. I guess it ought I give a hand of help here and show some thoughts
of Deçev with examples regarding the *k^and *g^(H) and *g^ and their
development in Thracian. I will quote from the book of him of the year
1960 "Charakteristik der Thrakischen Sprache", Cap. IV
Examples for the PIE palatals in Thrakish:
-suros, -zuras, -suras, -soras < PIE k'eu-
Zake, -zakos, -sakos < PIE k'aq-
Asamus, Samos < PIE ak'-
Arzos, Arsus < PIE arg'-
-zenes, zenus, -senus < PIE g'en-
Buzas, gen. Buzantos < PIE bhug'o-
-zalas, -sala, < PIE g'hel-
Zera, Zara, Zaera, -seres < PIE g'(h)eri-
dersu, Derzalas, Darzalas < PIE dhereg'h
thine-, thia, thie < PIE k'ei-
Thinta < PIE k'ent-
Thrambos < PIE k'rapo-
denthes, dentes, dentu < PIE g'ento, g'en-ti-
Dor, Duro, Doura,Diur- < PIE g'her-
etc, etc, etc
For each example one ask himself why a comparation with
Avestano/Sanskrit and not a comparation with Celto-Italic.
Why for "soura-" comparinc Avestan "sura" and not Rom. "surã" or even
Why for Asamus is forgoten the toponym Akmonia, Why for Buzas is the
avestan "buza" but not Rom. "buza"?
Why Zara is not compared with "zarã" or wit "sarã"? Why "thinta" not
with "Tinta"? why "denthes" not with "dinte"? Why "Dor" not with "dor"?
Why "dersu" not with "dârzu"?, why "thine" not with "Tine", "thie" with
"Tie" ? etc, etc, etc
Conclusion: just on the basis of the phonetical simmilarities and on the
assumption a language belongs to a certain group one can make almost
everything of the glosses.