Re: *(H-)p/bh[-r/l-] again again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Marco Moretti"
<marcomoretti69@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

> >
> > Yes, yes. And the arguments?
>
> You cannot project modern Basque words in the far prehistory and

then

> match them up with sparse items of the Devil only know what

languages

> of the remotest parts of this world! Diabole Domine, it is

impossible!

Well, reach for you smelling salts.

> Michelena and Trask reconstructed protoforms for the Basque of

about

> 2000 years ago, finding in Aquitanian a lot of forms clearly
> corresponding to their reconstruction. Their works are reliable.
> For example:
>
> Basque /mihi/ tongue < /*bini/
> and this is shown by clear evidence:
>
> there is a dialectal variant /miñ/
> in compounds there is /min-/ (/mintzaira/ "language", etc...)
> /ozpin/ "lightning" is /Ortzi/ + /mihi/
>
> In many words borrowed from Latin medial /n/ is /h/ or null in

modern

> Basque:
> /ahate/ "duck" < anatem
> /ohore/ "honour < hono:rem
> /liho/ "line" < li:num
> /ziape/ "mustard" < sinapis
> etc...
>

And how does that contradict what I'm saying? I'm talking about
_loanwords_.

> If you deny all this and match /mihi/, /liho/, /ahate/ with any

kinky

> Austronesian or Bantu resembling item, you look like a crackpot.
>

Good thing I don't do that then.

Torsten