Re: Again with the PIE homeland thing- RE: *(s)teuros

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
> <cdog_squirrel@> wrote:
>
> > Along with the ongoingly discussed PIE *(s)tauros - Proto-Semitic
> > *t~awr- (both bull, first also aurochs, second also ox),.......
>
> I wonder why S. Starostin's databases don't venture into comparing
> these two proto-words, which look astonishingly similar in form and
> meaning:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yt3b79
> http://tinyurl.com/yux6my
>
> Also, these two proto-words are apparently not compared in A.
> Bomhard's 2007 Nostratic book, of which I have a preprint.
>
> Any thoughts, anyone?

If the PIE root is *(s)taur then we have an apparent violation of root
constraints. PIE didn't have any roots with a diphthong followed by a
resonant. That suggests a borrowing. If we analyze the root as *(s)tau
instead then the comparison breaks down because of the *r in the
Semitic form.