[tied] Re: Of cows and living

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Torsten, I think Old Chinese is fairly straightforward but I

thank

> you for the nice and very interesting summary.
> >
> > I am much more concerned about why Sino-Tibetan presents itself

as

> a prefixing language.

Maybe because it *is* a prefixing language?

> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > It seems to be there is another, as yet unidentified "player" at
> the table.
> >

The three PIE roots *lak(t)-, *galak(t)- and *melg^-/*melk^- *taken
together* look like they were loaned from a (predominantly)
prefixing language, eg Sino-Tibetan. The fact that there is a
similar root with matching semantics in PTB *m-/s-lyak- and in OC
*luk makes it likely that this is the case.

So, no cognacy, in the strict sense of the word.


Torsten