IE g^ , gwe -> dacian g', z

Hello M. Iacomi,
However there are still some issues on the Dacian side...:

1. PIE gwher -> Germisara ( Dac. ge ) -> Zermisara (Dac. z)

(please note that ge->z is a later transformation in Dacian,
because Germisara is also attested )

2. PIE arg' -> Argessos/Argissos (Dac. ge/gi ) ->never arrive to z.

So The Rule is : PIE gwh -> Dacian g' -> Dacian z
PIE g' -> Dacian z, g'

I don't find for instance Dacian glosses where PIE k' can be
clearly identified (if somebody knows, please tell me).

Best Regards,
marius alexandru

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- 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