I will get back to what really matters :
DATA.
My point of view : I have already made
clear.
Point 1 :
PIE inherited a set of four vowels :
*i *u *a (written as <e> by tradition)
*o
Point 2 :
Innovative morphological processes within
PIE
have lead to a situation where :
1. vowel *i and consonant *y
2. vowel *u and consonant *w
about function in the same way.
(And this applies to many Chamito-Semitic languages
as well)
============
Point 1 is demonstrated by :
A : root y_d "full" moon
Basque (h)il
Latin i:d-u:s
Egyptian yid-aH
Basque never treats *i as -y-.
A clear case of vowel *i.
B : root n_y_l "night"
Sanscrit ni:ra
Arabic layla.
In Arabic, Point 2 also applies
but Sanscrit has no historical process
that could explain why a short *i could become long
i:
So we are sure that in this root we are dealing
with *-y- not *i
A case of vowel *i, unexplainable
otherwise.
the rare scheme *i_a is an archaic variant of
*o_a,
exceedingly rare in PIE but frequent in
Chamito-Semitic.
C
a lot of Greek lexemata :
i-kn-u / i-gn-u / i-skh-nos / i-khthu:s /
etc
===
All these data have *i and *u as vowels not
consonants.
==============
Next :
Gotic has the word
tr-u-dan : to tread (Streitberg 1920 : page
302 "treten)
How do you account for the fact that this Gotic
word
OBVIOUSLY is from root *tr_d, with -u- as
vowel.
Streitberg calls this :
"unreg. Ablaut"
This is a hole in the orthodox theory of PIE
apophony.
Neither Gotic nor Greek abide by the orthodox
theory.
=================
Somebody previously wrote : "we know who is who
around here".
I am confident that in a very near
future,
people will be able to tell who actually
"knows nothing and only writes for an excuse to
insult with his very dull wit."
I am not afraid about the ultimate judgment that
will come from this polemic,
So far, I have provided many examples, in
favor of my point of view,
I am confident that in the end, people will judge
facts and data.
My point of view is clear
and so are my examples.
I have already won the fight, and you have
lost,
The End.
=======================
----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:32 AMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:49 PMSubject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:30 PMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
***What has been "killed" is the expectation that Arnaud has any understanding of the meaning of 'verbal'.============ =======A.FMost roots cannot be separated as verbal or nominal.***A statement that is ignorance personified.In any case, it is certainly not true of PIE,PCR***What is more : in most cases,it is the vocalic scheme that gives the final grammatical status tothe compound : Consonant root + Vocalic scheme.It is true with PIE :dh_H1 + vowel /e/ = a verbdh_H1 + vowel /o/ = a noun.***The PIE root has the form *CAC where *A has the form *e, *o, *ø, or *R if the final *C is a resonant. The choice is based on stress-accentual considerations not grammatical ones.PR*** 88It is true also in Chinese :n_p + vowel /a/ = verb "to enter"n_p + vowel /o/ = noun "inside, interior"This is basically a proto-World phenomenon.There are hundreds of cases of roots grammatically undetermined.***Again, pure nonsense. Even Afroasian, a closely connected language to PIE, has anything like *A.I am beginning to suspect that Arnaud knows he knows nothing and only writes for an excuse to insult with his very dull wit.Patrick Ryan***<snip>.