Re: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighi

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50606
Date: 2007-11-27

 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)


> A.F :
>
> I have written that Chinese was oxytonic (stressed on last vowel)
and that this caused a major syllabic "crunch" in this language.
>
> Now, if you look at pages 607/608 of the above reference,
> pleng : flat surface => Cf. PIE pel(H2)
> pling : full => Cf. PIE pel(H1/w)
> pral : forehead => cf. PIE per(H2)
> prut : boil => Cf. PIE bherew-
> pwa(:)r : fire => Cf. PIE puH2ar
>
> It is quite clear that these words are cognates not loanwords.
> They had more than one syllable in ST before the "crunch".

Why is that quite clear?

Torsten

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

A.F

Which IE language could these words be from ?

if you suppose that they have been massively borrowed from IE into ST ?

=========