----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:06 AMSubject: [Courrier indsirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 12:25 PMSubject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
A.F :Khoisan Cognates :============> BeiJing Dao4============Proto-Khoisan : *de [˜] Meaning : many Sandawe : *dē=> BeiJing duo1============ ==Proto-Khoisan : *diʔa [˜] Meaning : egg Sandawe : *diʔa=> BeiJing dan4Is it not Fascinating !?that it works.=========***It does not work.In order to seriously propose cognates, regular rules of correspondence must be formulated and demonstrated with numerous examples.In the examples cited above, while *dao and dào appear initially worthy of a further look (provided one is willing to overlook that BeiJing /d/ is actually [t]), the other two examples agree (?) only in their initials with there is no correspondence, at least apparently, in what follows the initial.With relatively short words, the purely random correspondence of initials in two languages, is not proof of anything.Patrick Ryan=============A.FSandawe dao = BeiJing dao4 (no need for explanation)Sandawe de = BeiJing duo1 from Baxter taj (a + yod = e)Sandawe diHa= BeiJing dan4 fromA.F : to-x-an (x velar spirant unvoiced)dan4 is suffixed in Chinese and is from a 2-syllable word.Words rhyming in -an in BeiJing have ua in HaiKou and uing in JianOu,a clear indication that they come from o_an not just -an.As you know, Historical linguistics is the only science were coincidences are treated as valuable data, while others fields consider they are just random.***Now as far as Arabic is concerned,this language displays a very high level ofsegmental "instability" :Verbs meaning to cut :batta, batara, barata, batala, balata, sabata, bataka.r and l are both infixes and suffixes.And there are hundreds of examples like that.Most affixes can appear anywhere :rashsh : sprinkle watert?a-rashHamâ : to be angryHa-t?-amHamm : blackHama-t?a : black bloodIt is always hard to know which two consonants might be the "real" root.============ =***The process described above is not one I have ever seen described in a text on PAA or Semitic. No expert in either mentions "segmental instability" as far as I know.If this is the view of an expert ("real" root), evena minority view, I would like a reference.
========A.FYou can get plenty of it here :but it is written in French.===============I have no idea what "t?" is supposed to mean in an Arabic word if not a sequence of /t-?/. Perhaps the writer above means Humatun, blackness, where the final -t is the feminine inflection.============A.F-t?- is emphatic tI chose to write it this way for the sake of clarityother symbols may fail to go thru unicode.And by the way,I can tell -t- from -t?-,so your last sentence is somethingwe can all make do without it.================Patrick Ryan***