From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39154
Date: 2005-07-09
> ----- Original Message -----Yeah, he says that the Hittite and Tocharian forms are not
> From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:22:42 -0500, Patrick Ryan
> > Some very competent linguists of the past (Benveniste, for one) looked at the
> >disconnect between Hittite and _ALL_ the other IE-derived languages
>
> Nonsense. Only Greek has the metathesis (*d(h)g^ho:m >
> khtho:n), since Skt. ks.- is inconclusive.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> What is nonsense? Are you saying that Benveniste DID NOT look at the problem.
>Well, unless Pokorny is a liar, he did, and judged that *g^hdhem- was original.
> The order dental-velar is proven by Hittite <tekan> andOf course. Metathesis *dhgh- > *ghdh- is trivial,
> Tocharian A <tkam.>. That's conclusive.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> So, two examples (you like) trumps two examples (I like).
> And secondly, you ignore the implications of the other two wordsOf course. And *(dh)g^hyes "yesterday". And *tek- "to give
>which are reconstructed with the same unusual initial cluster.
>
> Of course, Greek ikhthûs must be ignored. Or do you say that
>'fish' should be *dhg^hu:-?