Re: swallow vs. nightingale

> Torsten :
> I think it's something like *(a)n,W-, and that -t is a suffix of
> whatever 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.
> ============
> Arnaud : (new)
> 1. There is not evidence for #(a)-

PIE *ap-, *akW- "water" etc

> 2. Do you mean -t?- (glottalized) is from -t- (voiceless) ??

Sorry, error, I meant -H (some laryngeal).

> 3. Vowel length is enough to assert that some H was there in
> Latin.

Not if it's loan, for the second time.

> And vowel coloring as /a:/ is also a proof.

Not if it's a loan.

> 4. As regards */a/ in PIE, I consider /a/ and /e/ is the same.

That won't make them the same.


So I don't care if you write it /a/ or /e/.

Sloppy.

> I write it /e/ in PIE but it is worth /a/ in other proto-languages.

What is? /a/?

> ===========================
> Arnaud (Old)
> Berber is ama:n with long â.
> > The root for proto-berber is also *m_?
>
> Torsten : Sez who?
> ========
> Arnaud : (new)
>

http://books.google.fr/books?id=YRoJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA64,M1

> La langue berbère page 64
>
> eau : amân.

Clicking 'afficher les images de la page' I get 'Eman, aman'. No â.
Same thing in the PDF copy.

> long a:
> and a long a: in Berber always betrays a + glottal stop
> inherited short -a- usually is schwa.

Which long /a/?

> Since there is the alternative that it is a loan, this us not all
> obvious.
>
> The only language that has loanwords from Semitic or PAA is Greek.
> I don't think *ma? is a loanword in Latin.

I do.

> > which is why the /n,W/ in a reconstructed *(a)n,W- "water" is
> > nice: it may produce m- and n- and w-.
> > ======
> > Arnaud :
> > 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 the
> claim rests on a long /a/ which makes it suspicious. That leaves
> Egyptian and Arabic. It could be an independent development.
> ======
> Arnaud (new)
> Long a: in Berber

Nope.

> Long a: in Latin

Loan.

> Long a: + glottal stop in Arabic.
> M + glottal stop in Egyptian.


> This is not an independent development
> but a clear cognate : *m_?

See above.

> > I don't want to sound ironic
> Oh yes you do.
>
> I don't want to
> but I have to say unpleasant things because we disagree.
> (so far about this particular point)
> ===================

> 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.
>
> Arnaud (new)
> I do not actually "fight" Venneman's theories.
> And I am not sarcastic,
> So far I have seen anything clear that requires something especially
> new.
> requires = not explainable otherwise.

The option of not trying to find new explanations for what can be
explained otherwise I think I'll save for when I get older.

> Maybe you are not selling the product clearly enough.
> You probably already gave it
> what book of Venneman do you recommend to read first ?

Theo Vennemann, Gen. Nierfeld:
Europa Vasconica - Europa Semitica
http://tinyurl.com/2bpvyn
should contain most of his articles.

His homepage seems to be down


Torsten