Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formatin of IE subgroups

On 2006-05-11 10:05, tgpedersen wrote:

>> [Patrick:] and why *W rather than *w???).
>
> Latin canis. I'd rather believe *kW- > *k- than *kw- > *k-.
> Pulleyblank reconstructs Old Chinese *kÜ- in his attempt to link
> Chinese and IE (but also *kÜw- I think it was).

For Latin, the difference doesn't matter, since *kW and *k(^)w simply
merge there, so the loss of the labial element is problematic either
way. But the Satem branches that have the word (Indo-Iranian, Baltic,
Armenian) unambiguously point to biphonemic *k^w-, and the /ku-/ of Gk.
kúo:n can hardly reflect *kW-.

>> The root on which it is based is obviously **k^eH- (Nostratic **k^A?-
>> ), 'to be a dog" + *-w, 'to wag the tail like a dog' (PIE *k^eHw-) +
>> *n(A), 'a (tail-)wagger' >(*k^won-).
>
> That's not obvious to me.
> I was wondering by what kind of principle you have joined the two
> roots?

Me too. Proto-Nostratic must have been a most extraordinary language if
it had verbs like 'to be a dog'.

Piotr