Torsten:
>>>I'd like to discuss the idea that supposed PIE
>> >plain velars occur only in loans. So, fire away, list some examples
>> >of what you believe to be incontrovertible examples of plain velars
>> >and I'll check with Møller and Bomhard. I find them, you lose; I
>> >don't find them, I lose. OK?
Peter:
>> why present the argument in terms of "winning"
>> and "losing"?
Torsten:
>nothing nore pugnacious than playing cards; just a game.
Nobody wins when academic discussion becomes a competition.
In any case, Moeller and Bomhard are attempting show a genetic connection,
they attempt to identify roots that are inherited within PIE. They are not
making a list of loan words!
Bomhard at least specifically tries to exclude loans. So if a root is found
in
Moeller or Bomhard, it certainly does not prove it is a loan.
It may be a loan (if they are wrong) or inherited (if
they are right). Therefore you cannot use them as final proof that a
particular root is a loan. If anything, finding the root there increases
the odds that it is not a loan!
Finding the root in Bomhard and Moeller only proves that they suggested it
was inherited from Nostratic. Not finding it only proves they did not
suggest it was inherited.
_If_ you have discovered anything, it would be that Latin words with ca-
correspond to similar roots in certain other language groups. Now that
could be interesting, and worth taking further. But it doesn't prove that
these roots are borrowed, nor does it prove that PIE plain /k/ did not
exist, which was the starting point of all this.
Peter