Re: [tied] Re: *kW- "?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: *kW- "?"


> tgpedersen wrote:
> >> So, in order to find IE-AA links we must first reconstruct AA
> >> itself. All IE-Arabic comparisons are worth nothing without it.
> >
> >
> > Only if you assume Proto-IE borrowed from Proto-AA.
> >
> >
> > Torsten
> >
> >
>
> Not exactly. Taking only Arabic is dangerous. And I mean not only possible
> borrowings. Let's consider two situations:
>
> 1) Take modern Spanish and modern English and try to reconstruct
> Proto-Indo-European.
> 2) Take English, German, Gothic etc., try to reconstruct Proto-Gmc., then
> take this reconstruction and Latin and try to reconstruct PIE.
>
> Which way is better? Is the way nr. 1 worth anything? And do you need to
> assume Proto-Gmc. borrowed from Latin in order to estimate both ways?
>
> Btw. Classic Arabic has preserved most Semitic features but not all of
> them.
> Particularly, it merged Semitic *s with *s^ (take Hebrew and you will find
> it), and it rebuilt conjugation (take Akadian). Enough?
>
> And explain please in which the difference is, that one between the way
> nr.
> 1 above and the fantastic ideas of P. Ryan to compare Arabic and Germanic.
>
> Grzegorz J.

***
Patrick:

As usual, G. cannot understand what he has read.

I have never advocated comparing Arabic and Germanic nor have I ever done
so.

***