Re: [tied] IE g^ , gwe -> dacian g', z

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:

> Hello Piotr,
> This seems very possible for me...
>
> But the real satem issue is the other one :
> PIE arg' -> Argessos/Argissos (Dac. ge/gi ) ->never arrive to z.

On which basis do you assert that Argessos/Argissos (but why not
Ordessos?!) have to be linked with PIE "*arg^"? And even if the
toponym would be linked with the root, how do you know which was
the Dacian way to pronounce that word, since it is already known
that Greeks could transcribe also /dZ/ in that way (see Piotr's
reply)?! You made two unsupported assumptions, so you cannot expect
your example having any important argumentation value with respect
to satem character of Dacian. Actually, the other form ("Ordessos")
would point out rather to /dZ/ than to /g/.

>>> 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)
>>
>> Such variable spellings look to me like attempts to render
>> foreign /3^/ (/dZ/) for which there was no letter in the
>> scribes' native orthography.

... that is a very general phenomenon, encountered everywhere, to
use one's own different approximation graphemes for some foreign
phonemes, without direct correspondent.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi