Re: Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

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

From: Patrick Ryan

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:53 PM

Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

Fournet:

====

A.F

Dear Pinocchio,

What kind of overweening feeling makes you think you are entitled to call me Fournet and sign with your full name Patrick Ryan ?

===========

 

I am not sure what you mean by a "super-cognate" but *p_l is, most certainly, not one.

====

A.F

Dear Pinocchio,

If you are not sure of anything, avoid making abrupt conclusions about what may be a super-cognate.

I am afraid you fail to understand what this word is about.

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

 

If we look to languages like KhoiSan, for example, we should _not_ expect to find roots of the form *CVC which correspond with PAA (and through it, PIE) and Sino-Caucasian roots. KhoiSan broke away too early for *CVCV stems to have been formulated. The best we might be able to do is find simple monosyllables with a fairly straightforward meaning like **ma: (from *MHA), 'ripe and full', that are only an element in *CVC roots.

=========

A.F

Dear Pinocchio,

I disagree with that kind of unprovable unfalsifiable flapdoodle.

Please avoid using "we" when you speak about your own little person.

There are super-cognate roots present in Khoisan with the structure CvC,

and CvC-vC.

Please look at Khoisan a little bit closer,

before I humiliate you once again with rock-solid data.

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

 

With PAA (especially Semitic) and PIE, which were in contact, we might be able to find a few *CVCC correspondences but supposing that "Hafil" corresponds to PIE *pleH- is amateurish. The PAA biliteral roots that developed into triliteral roots did not do so by prefixing H but rather by suffixation and gemination. If you do not (apparently) know this, you should read up on the subject before recklessly tossing out obvious nonsensicalities.

=========

A.F

Dear Pinocchio,

If you had any idea what PAA and Semitic were about,

I think you would avoid making a fool of yourself,

uttering that kind of over-assertive and absurd comments.

Arabic has a large array of prefixes, infixes and suffixes.

Get yourself Kazimirski or Lisan and you will know.

Keep on reading and try to understand something

before you proclaim yourself an expert.

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

 

As it happens, there is an Arabic word which in one of its stem forms _may_ possibly be compared with PIE *pleH-, namely ?aflaHa, 'prosperous' /fala:H-un, 'prosperity' , by way of 'provided with abundance/fullness' . The root here, for your instruction, is f-l-H.

 

There is no "H1" in Egyptian, hieroglyphic or otherwise. In any case, if there were really an Egyptian cognate of *pel(H)-, it would appear in Egyptian as *fn(j). There is, in fact, a cognate with the root of PIE *pne-u-: fn, 'pant, be weak'; and fnD, 'nose'.

=======

A.F

Dear Pinocchio,

PIE *pneu is an infixed variant of *p_H1 root,

as evidenced by Hebrew and Arabic n_p_H / n_f_H

which have infix n- treated as a prefix, instead of an infix.

this makes shreds with your comparison between *pnew and Egyptian fn.

The root in *pnew is *p_H1.

Note that Basque is buh-atu from the same root p_H1 with no affix at all.

This root *p_H also exists in Uralic and Amerind Salish, etc.

I am afraid you overlooked something...

I dare say this is becoming habitual.

Please do something about this predicament of yours.

 

Dear Pinocchio,

Before you claim you swallowed the big whale,

and understand everything,

I suggest you first take care your big nose

does not fall off.

 

Arnaud.

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

 

 

 

Patrick Ryan

 

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

From: fournet.arnaud

To: cybalist@... s.com

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:36 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

 

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

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@... s.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:48 AM

Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

> > A.F :
> > > pling : full => Cf. PIE pel(H1/w)
> > > It is quite clear that these words are cognates not loanwords.
> > > They had more than one syllable in ST before the "crunch".
==
 I think they are borrowed either into both Old Chinese and
PIE from some unrelated language geographically in between them, or
into PIE from some early predecessor of Chinese.

Torsten

========

A.F

What about :

Yukaghir pojo- : a lot (l > yod is regular in Siberian languages)

Niger Touareg : balal : full, abundant (this language has no b/p contrast)

Arabic : Hafil : full (note that H1 is initial in Arabic not final : pel-H1-)

Hieroglyphic Egyptian (with vowels) : Hipu:lil : abondant (H1 initial)

 

There is no alternative to super-cognate status for root *p_l : full, abundant.

 

NB : Uralic forms pal/pol are tainted by PIE and I disagree they may be cognates.

They are at best cognates, secondarily tainted by IE words, or IE loanwords.

Arnaud

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