Re: Diphthongs

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> > Since we are here, one has to mention that Duridanov sees a lot

of

> > correspondancies between Baltic and Thracian but he affirms
> > too "there is no corresponance between Slavic and Thracian". That
> > will mean the contact between Baltic and Slavic are all of later
> > nature, somewhere in the christian time. Does it fit in the

Baltic-

> > Slavic relationship on the timeline?
> >
> > Alex
>
> Again, if translation of Ezero ring is correct, there was neuters
> ending -UM in Thracian language then. Proto Baltic language didn't
> have such ending. Slavic languages have neuters ending -O, which, I
> think, was derived from neuters ending -UM. So, there is no
> relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages, but there is
> relationship between Thracian and Slavic languages. For example:
>
> Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELTIS > ZELTAS > Latvian word ZELTS
> Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZELOTIUM > ZOLOTIUM > ZOLOTUM > ZOLOTU >
> Russian word ZOLOTO
> Dacian word ZELTIUM > ZLETIUM > ZLATIUM > ZLATUM > ZLATU > Polish
> word ZLATO
>
> Regards, Aigius

*********
In an impressive analysis in Cybalist 37489, Jens said that there
is no word ZELTA (much less ZELTIUM) on the Ezero ring, adding
convincing linguistic arguments to what seems apparent fron looking at
photographs of the ring itself.
Duridanov, in what I take to be an authoritative Thracian word list
elsewhere on the Web, has nothing like this word.
Aigius, if you disagree, then state your reasoning. It seems to me
the minimum moral requirement for posting on Cybalist is paying
attention to others' postings. It's a privilege that I don't like to
see abused, for amateurs like us to be answered by professionals
Dan Milton