Re: Re[2]: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

Stumbling at the very beginning of our methods and trying to prove something much more subtle is surely going to help your credibility...

"Have you ever heard about Phonetic Correspondances as the founding principle of Comparatism ?"

So much noise for so little reason, what a waste of bytes...

Edgard.

On 9/19/07, fournet.arnaud <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

As Piotr already pointed out, you're confusing the single
segment *kW with the sequence of two segments *k^w (or if
you prefer, *k'w). PIE *k^ > Skt. s', PIE *w > Skt. v, so
*h1ek^wos > Skt. ás'va-.

===========

Greek should be ek-uos or ek-Fos

if that two-segment story was exact.

I consider that two-segment story to be a graphic gimmick

that makes no linguistic sense.

"letter-game" not phonology.

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian M. Scott

To: fournet.arnaud

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:25 AM

Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian

At 3:40:47 AM on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> 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

As Piotr already pointed out, you're confusing the single
segment *kW with the sequence of two segments *k^w (or if
you prefer, *k'w). PIE *k^ > Skt. s', PIE *w > Skt. v, so
*h1ek^wos > Skt. ás'va-.

> Germanic *e usually is i
> how do you account for *exwaz instead of ixwaz ?

PIE *e > PGmc. *e; this then became *i before nasal plus
consonant (Lat. <ventus>, Goth. <winds>, OE <wind>) or when
followed by *i, *i:, or *j in the next syllable (Lat.
<medius>, Goth. <midjis>, ON <miðr>, OE <midd>). None of
these conditions obtains in the 'horse' word.

Brian