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

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

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:39 PM

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

On 2007-09-25 19:27, fournet.arnaud wrote:

> I have studied the matter better than you think :
> Chinese quan3 from *kuH2on is a loanword.
> Nothing fortuitous.

More's the pity that the *h2 is incompatible with the way the word
behaves in IE.

==============

A.F

It seems we definitely disagree.

===================

Incidentally, the Old Chinese pronunciation is given as
something more or less like *kHWir by the new school of OCh.
reconstruction (Sagart); it matches regularly the Tibeto-Burman forms
(*kW&j or the like). Chinese gou3 is regarded as an early loan from
Proto-Hmnong- Mien *klu, unconnected with the Tibeto-Burman words.
==============

A.F

This "new" school of Old Chinese is phoney.

These people keep pissing on the grave of the spiritual father : the towering figure of M. Karlgren. As far as I see, these people (Sagart, whom I have met, Baxter, etc) are just walking in the footprints of Karlgren pretending they are making something "new". They are doing nothing "new" : it is like using pharyngeals all the time and spitting the worst words on Saussure every page you write.

These people deserve only contempt.

 

I have studied their reconstructions :

it is ok with Chinese dialects north of Yanzi River after + 500 AD.

I warmly advise you to forget their works for other dialects such as Min or Qiong, and for standard HAn dialects before year + 500 AD.

 

I suppose you are not blind,

so you "probably" !? notice this Proto-Hmnong- Mien *klu can easily be derived from my personal reconstruction : *klup?

Your assertion that *klu is ""unconnected with the Tibeto-Burman words"" (Sic)

is outrageously stupid.
Sorry for being that much rude, but you are stepping beyond limits,

so you force me to step beyond limits as well.

 

==================

> If you accept "honey" *mjit was borrowed from Tokharian :
> then it means Tokharian had things like i: or yi as nucleus.
> I let the specialists ponder what it means for (proto-)Tokharian

There isn't much to ponder upon. Proto-Tocharian consonants were
palatalised before front vowels: *medHu > *m'etHu > PToch. *m'&t& > TB
mit. The PToch. form is a perfect match for MCh. *mjit. It's precisely
the palatal glide before the vowel that poits to Tocharian as the source.

==========

A.F

Thank you for confirming I am going in the right direction.

===========================

Piotr