Re: [tied] Baltic-Slavic disintegration

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`.

obvios? That I do not laugh. If this is for you obvious than it is ok
with me.

>> 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.

There are a lot of other statements where these ancient people showed
they are interested in the glosses and specified what a certain language
use for a certain word.

> 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

there is nothing perfect here. You forget the palatal medium of "g".
Over.

Alex