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

On 2006-05-11 22:41, Patrick Ryan wrote:

> That is a complete misrepresentation of what I am asserting.
>
> I am claiming that, in an ancestral language to PIE, *KHE meant
> 'dog' but that, by the time PIE was developing, no *CV root was
> permitted (with very few exceptions like *me), and that only *k^é?Ø
> or *k^éhØ (both verbs) was available as a basis on which to form
> further semantic extensions, in this case, -*w, meaning 'wag'.
>
> In my posting, I derive 'dog' from 'wag' NOT 'to be a dog'.

In the posting to which I referred you say only this:

---

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-). This (PIE *k^eHw-) is most probably
also the basis for "howl" (PIE **k^eHwl-) rather than *ul (owls do not
howl!!!) whereas dogs, when they are not wagging their tails or
sleeping, frequently do.

---

Piotr