My attempt at an internal reconstruction of PIE has
gone very well. I'm now certain I have successfully
discovered the rules going back to when it broke off
as its own language (though a few rules might be
missing).
It also became clear that PIE came from the same
mother language as Proto-Uralic, and this language
itself came from the same mother language as
Proto-Afro-Asiatic. I have reconstructed the basics
of this language and have only a few uncertainties.
The links between these languages are normal sound
changes, dissimilation, metathesis and analogy. There
are no broad generalizations in my work; I don't just
point out that some words with similar meaning begin
with similar sounds, etc.
If you feel some of this is outside the bounds of
this list's purpose, let me know. I understand that
many odd theories have been advanced by amateurs with
agendas or unfounded principles, so I don't expect
anyone to just take my word for this.
To begin:
--- P&G <G&
P@...> wrote:
>
> Not entirely.
> (a) H1 leaves the vowel unchanged.
> (b) There is debate over the outcome of some
> sequences where the vowel is
> not /e/.
I believe h1 following an o changes it to e.
>
> h1 was probably /h/ or /?/.
> h2 may have been a velar or post-velar fricative.
> h3 may have been voiced (though evidence is slim)
> and may have been rounded.
h1 was x^
h2 was x
h3 was xW
These are the fricative counterparts of k^, k, kW
When these stops were word final they became
fricatives (this is not the only source for them).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com