Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 49979
Date: 2007-09-19

Could you explain more about Sanscrit and AV ?
I thought these languages are Satem :
k > z(h)
kw > k
So we are supposed to expect that
Hekwos > Skrt akas
Germanic *e usually is i
how do you account for *exwaz instead of ixwaz ?
Next :
loanwords within PIE = not cognate.
Hittite and Greek cannot be cognates.
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

On 2007-09-17 21:18, fournet.arnaud wrote:

> supposedly *Hekwos :

*h1ék^wo-s, with *k^w (two segments), not *kW (one labiovelar segment).
A small difference, but it does matter.

> LAtin equus ok
> Gaulish epo- ok
> Greek : ikkos, hikkos
> should be etos (attic)

??? (see below)

> or epos (dorian)
> Conclusion : Totally F... up.
> Hittite : obviously an Iranian loanword.

You mean HLuw. á-zú-wa/i- (possibly but not obviously an Indo-Aryan
loan) and Lyc. esbe- (which might or might not be of Iranian origin).
Even if these words are loans (and some scholars would disgree), they
are not loans from a non-IE source.

> Sanscrit : ashvas
> should be akas.

Most certainly not!

> Won again...

No. You lose here. Skt. ás'va- is 100% regular, as are also Av. aspa-,
OPer. asa, Germanic *exwaz and Toch. A/B yuk/yakwe. Actually, the only
outcome that must be regarded as irregular is the one in Greek, but
dialectal -kk- in <ikkos> is a regular reflex of the cluster *-k(^)w-
(cf. lákkos 'pond' < *lakwos, cf. Lat. lacus) and "mainstream" -pp-
reflects *-kkW- < *-k(^)w-. Thus, the only really puzzling things are
the vovel /i/ in the Greek word, attested already in Mycenaean <i-qo->
(PGk. *íkwos), and the initial aspiration in Attic.

> Have you ever heard about Phonetic Correspondances
> as the founding principle of Comparatism ?
> Please read your Classics for Epistemological reference.
> This word is a shame on the face of Indo-Europeanists.

It's a pompous statement based on next to nothing (a slightly aberrant
form in just one branch).