[tied] Re: PIE's closest relatives

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
>
> Alexander:
> >Well, the Tartaria tablets appears to be related by some

archeologists

> >with the later writting form of Sumer. And not just Tartaria, but

too

> >some other things found later in Bulgaria.
>
> There is controversy with that. One might just as well say that the
> European scripts are native and that the Sumerian writing was either
> influenced by Tartaria or was a seperate development. Abstract
> patterns were common from earliest times on pottery and religious
> artifacts in Europe.
>
> Regardless of the outcome, this has no bearing on the Sumerian
> language being anywhere near the Indo-European speakers. Going
> on a quasi-writing system is hardly proof of anything. This is why

I'd

> rather play it as safe as I can. If there is a connection with the

two

> words, then that connection must surely be Semitic. There are few
> if any words between IE and Sumerian that one could attempt
> to connect but there is always the possibility of Semitic being the
> intermediary.
>
> I can only think of *kWekWlo- being connected with Sumerian
> /girgir/. However, even so, there is Semitic *galgal- as a potential
> go-between in such an event and IE is in fact built on native
> elements anyway (*kWel- "to roll").

However, it is wiser to consider Sumerian /girgir/ as derived form an
expressive form. Words for "to roll" are often of expressive nature
and of phonetic structure /*g/k(w)Vr/l/ in so many language that very
little can be inferred.
I see little phonological and comparative substance here (using Larry
Trask's idiom).

Best wishes

Marco