Re: swallow vs. nightingale

> Torsten (old) :
> Pokorny:
> mad-, naß, triefen; auch von Fett triefen, vollsaftig, fett,
> gemästet;
> mad-do-, Mästung'.
> =======================
> Arnaud (New)
> I suppose it is Pokorny 699 m_H2-

It's classic Pokorny without laryngeals. I think they are overused in
the present practice.

> LAtin mân-âre, mâdêo : "flow ; be wet" (a is long)
> It doesn't have the same structure : m_H2 versus m_t? (or ngw_t?).

I think it's something like *(a)n,W-, and that -t is a suffix of
ehatever meaning. The length of the vowel a is the only evidence for a
laryngeal in PIE, which could have been caused in the loaning process.
I don't think there was a vowel /a/ in PIE.

> I first didn't know what nass was doing here. (But I understood
> later on)
> =========================
> Torsten :
> Møller:
> "2 *m- 'Wasser'
> (< voridg.-semit.-hamit. A-m-, vgl. berberisch Plur. aman
> 'Wasser'),
> ========
> ARnaud (new) :
> The exact underlying form is *m_? (glottal stop).

Is?

> Berber is ama:n with long â.
> The root for proto-berber is also *m_?

Sez who?

> #a- is not part of the root but the article. -n is plural.
> ============
> + Laryngal idg. reduz. ma:-,
> nordwesteurop. mit r-Suffix in lat. mare ETc
>
> Arnaud : obvious cognates between PIE and PAA.

Since there is the alternative that it is a loan, this us not all obvious.

> ==================
> = semit. m- in
> hebr. màyim
> aram. màyin Pl. Wasser'
> syr. mayå,
> assyr. *mu:, Plur. me: 'Wasser',
> arab. + y-, w- oder A- dehnstufig ma:`un 'Wasser'
> (vgl. Nöldeke Neue Beitr. 166 ff.);
> ======
> Arnaud (new) :
> Arabic has mâ? with glottal stop.
> (Arabic -â# is possible without glottal stop
> therefore this glottal stop is relevant).
> Egyptian m_?_r = Coptic mêre "abyss" < *mu?-ra-
> Semitic does not distinguish ?y y? y and ?w w? w.
> (Tchadic does)
> So the only form that is relevant is Arabic mâ?
>
> ==========
> Torsten :
> which is why the /n,W/ in a reconstructed *(a)n,W- "water" is
> nice: it may produce m- and n- and w-.
> ======
> Arnaud (new) :
> It looks smart.
> The major trouble is it fails to provide *m_?-
> which obviously is the ground form for Berber, Egyptian, PIE,
> Arabic.

I haven't seen documentation for that claim for Berber. In PIE tye
claim rests on a long /a/ which makes it suspicious. That leaves
Egyptian and Arabic. It could be an independent development.

> ===========================
> Pulleyblank reconstructs /n,W/ for Old Chinese, which is where I
> got the idea.
> Arnaud : I didn't read Pullyblank
> but Cantonese ngo = "e-go" was enough for me
> to reach the same conclusion.

Check 'Pulleyblank' in the archives.

> ========================
> I usually don't prove things from 'probably'.

> I don't want to sound ironic

Oh yes you do.

> but some of the fetish ideas (like Vasconic or Euro-Semitic
> substrate) are not only unproved

Nothing in historical linguistics is. It's a work in progress.

> but do not look "probable" at all.

Don't judge theories by their looks. You could do yourself a favor and
actually read Vennemann. Then you can fight his theories with facts
instead of sarcasm.

> But I will always welcome your advice, analysis and data.

Oh, thank you. Likewise.


Torsten