Re: [tied] Baltic-Slavic disintegration

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>> a) that particular king (confusion with his personal name);
>> b) generic name for the other people's king
> [...]
> both a) and b) are right conclusions which however do not
> help here.

All on the contrary, they are meaningful. Since the so-called
name is not "Georgescu" but something having obvious kinship with
popular IE words for `king`.

> The "informed guess" belongs to the boundle of guesses which lead
> us to say something without knowing what.

Speak for yourself and do not use abusive plural generalizations.

> Such a pity there is no such sentence regarding this name where
> someone should have told us "..rex, que Traces riza dicebantum".

Ancient people were not professional linguists, so they hadn't
high interest for glosses. But everything which is _known_ points
towards satemism of Thracian. Even Pokorny, listing only a few
Thracian words, mentions (#566) the undoubtable correspondence
of Greek "Diogénês" with Thracian equivalent "Di(u)zenus", with
perfectly satem evolution of concerned PIE phoneme in Thracian.
"arzas", "asn", "es(/z)vas", "mezena", all show up specifical
satem phonetical features. Nuff' said.

Marius Iacomi