Re: -st

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 04-11-04 13:20, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Slavic <gn-> is completely isolated and may carry the

phonaesthetic

> > suggestion of pressing or crushing. I understand.
>
> I hope you do: Slavic *gn- for expected *n- IN THE 'NEST' WORD is
> completely isolated.

Of all the IE groups, which aren't such a big number. And from this
follows...?

>As for the phonaesthetic function of /gn-/, didn't
> I say, "in Slavic, TOO..."?
>
> > Hey! Sarcasm is not nice!
> > I might save it this way: Non-IE Nordwestblock (the ar-/ur-

language)

> > stretches all the way to the Black Sea, and *s-d "sit" is not
> > exclusively IE.
>
> Come on Torsten. If the presence of the 'nest' word in Sanskrit and
> Armenian does not disprove any "Nordwestblock" connections, what

does?

> Even if you stretch the NWB area all the way to the Black Sea (but

on

> what basis?)
>

I think there's a distinction here that has slipped by you: Kuhn
distinguished between two languages: a non-IE Nordwestblock (also
called the ar-/ur- language) and an IE one which replaced for a short
time only before replaced itself by Germanic; actually only the
latter one deserves the "Nordwestblock" label, the former extended,
based on placenames far out to the east where traces become sparse.

Torsten