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

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

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:32 AM

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

> ============ =======
> A.F
> 1.
> I have read that you can transpose word by word Sanscrit
> into Lituanian and get decent Lituanian :
> MAybe PIE has not even started splitting in fact !?

What does 'transpose' mean?

===========

Deivas davé dantis, Dievas duos duonas

DEvas adada:t datas, Devas dat dha:na:s

I guess this kind of code switch works bad with other languages.

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

> 2.
> How many different conjugations and roots have been listed
> in Old English for the most basic verb : to be.

Three roots: *es-, *bhu:- and *wes-

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

A.F :

Plus *H1er according to Watkins. makes Four.

So this beautiful "coherence" between Germanic languages

is obvious enough to have native speakers diverge on the number of roots.

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

> I heard a joke that there are as many verbs "to be" as you can find
> OE texts.

That's a joke all right.

> I don't think these languages are that much similar.
> I(ch) stand means present in English : past : I got up in German.
> There are major incoherences within Westic.

>
> 3.
> If you take the 100 word list as a base for a rough datation,
> FRench versus Italian : 79 %
> English versus German : 72 %
> French against English/German : 34 or 35 %.

Aha. So English split from German just before French split from Italian.

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

A.F :

-7% is more than "just" : about 1 500 years.

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

Torsten