From: tgpedersen
Message: 43501
Date: 2006-02-21
>wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@>
> > >language@>
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
> > > wrote:itself
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > asunidentified "player" at
> > > a prefixing language.
> >
> > Maybe because it *is* a prefixing language?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > It seems to be there is another, as yet
> > > the table.*taken
> > > >
> >
> > The three PIE roots *lak(t)-, *galak(t)- and *melg^-/*melk^-
> > together* look like they were loaned from a (predominantly)OC
> > prefixing language, eg Sino-Tibetan. The fact that there is a
> > similar root with matching semantics in PTB *m-/s-lyak- and in
> > *luk makes it likely that this is the case.drek)
> >
> > So, no cognacy, in the strict sense of the word.
>
> And to this family I can add, from Greater Austronesian:
>
> Formosan _alak_ 'child'
> Proto-Kra *lak 'child'
> Proto-Tai *lMuk 'offspring' (M = back unrounded semivowel)
>
> and possibly
>
> Proto-Tai *?dek 'child' (could be < Kam-Sui *?dek, *?dlek or *?
>Sino-Tibetan *Plain, vs Proto-Austronesian p&nuh "full". A good
> Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *anak 'child' spoils this set.
> But if we want a prefixing donor language, can we not just go to NWThe cow was invented in central Asia. Inventions come with manuals,
> Caucasian? And are we not in grave danger of not only being way
> off-topic, but merely collecting look-alikes?