Re: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

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

> > Of course, if no *a's were present in PIE, all the discussion on
> > uvular or pharyngeal character of *k/*g/*gh is just groundless.
> >
> > Of the previously mentioned by me, Lubotsky gives the following
> > reconstructions: *bheH2g^- for bhajati / phagein, *k^eH2d- for
> > cadere/çad-, *g^heH2n-s- ~ *g^hH2n-s- for goose.
> >
>
> He has to resort to -eh2- 's, if he wants to keep PIE free of
> loanwords.

I am inclined to take all words with apparently non-alternating /a/
to be loanwords borrowed after IE had (re-)phonemicized /a/.
Interestingly enough, that time was shortly before IE broke apart,
which means its speakers were already in the process of expanding
outwards from their ancestral homeland. Coincidence? Perhaps not...

> I heard by chance the other day that there is such a thing as acorn
> poisoning in horses. That means (I think) that if *bhag- "beech,
> oak" is identical to *bhag- "eat" (in Greek), then the root has to
> do with pig raising (they were driven out to feed in the forest,
> whether on the nuts of beech or oak was immaterial). The *bhag-
> root exists in Basque too, supposedly a loan from Latin (why?).
>
> The goose is a proven import article too.

What's the proof?

- Rob