From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 51005
Date: 2007-12-27
----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:45 PMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale----- Original Message -----From: tgpedersenSent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:41 AMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale> =========
> Arnaud> *ma? "water" (in general)
> *ngut? "rain"
> *s?ab "to flow like a stream"
I didn't know that. Where do those roots come from?
============ARnaud (new)Root ma? "water"Pokorny maH2 : LAtin mâ-dêo "to be humid"Arabic mâ? "water"Coptic : moou [mo?u] < *ma?u "water"http://www.metalog.org/files/crum/197.gif
Touareg ?amân or ?am?an "water(s)"(This word has no singular form)http://books. google.fr/ books?id= YRoJAAAAQAAJ& printsec= titlepage# PPA64,M1
> > La langue berbère page 64
This root does not seem to exist in Basque.I guess from *ma? you should get <mi> in Basque.I found nothing like mi "water" in Basque or Etruscan.Root *ngut? "rain"Basque ur "water"PIE wed "water"Arabic mat?-ar "to rain"Chinese yu3 "rain"Uralic cognacy status is unclear.===================I think there was a root *(a)n,W-/(u) n,W- "water"
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ Op.html
with various extensions
-l/r
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ Opr.html
-y
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ my.html
-t
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ pd.html
etc
which is loaned from some culture based on settlement on rivers, in
Europe probably LBK-RössenARnaud (new)If I understand you properly,you are supposing that PIE speakers arriving in Europegot a certain number of roots and wordsfrom a pre-existing language, substrate in Europe,And you are further supposing that this substrate is LBK-roessen ?Is this correct ?
> ============ ========
ARnaud (old)
> As regards /a/ or /e/,
> I consider so far that PRoto-Sapiens had only four vowels
> which I write as *u *o *a *i.
> In PIE, *a is written with grapheme <e> since tradition and Brugmann.
> Equating *a and *e is not sloppy,
> this is just the way orthodox PIE deals with inherited *a.
> /a/ is a phoneme, in the sense this word has in structuralist
saussurian phonology has : a unit in a system.
> /a/ is [a] when in contact with H2, otherwise /a/ is [e]
> When unstressed /a/ is schwa.
So what you're saying is all /a/'s are eh2?Arnaud (new) :PIE inherited /a/ (= PAA /a/)In PIE this /a/ evolved in different ways :- in most cases : [e]- when unstressed but lubrifiant : schwa [°](a in most languages but i in sanscrit)- when followed by H2 : [a:]- when followed by H1: [e:]- Initial : H2a : #a-- Initial : H1e : #e-When the structure H1aH2 or H2aH1 occursthen the result is the same as H1a or H2a(second H erased : no length : coloring from preceding H)There was no phonological constrast between /a/ and /e/in earlier PIE.Things changed later on in each specific language.Arnaud
> > ============ ========= ======
>
There is â in the transcription.I'll take your word for it. I don't read Arabic.Arnaud (new)I cannot believe you don't read Arabic.I thought you could.I cannot understand how you can :- be unable to read Arabic script- stockpile a lot of data on Angelfire- support a Semitic-like substrate in western Europe.
You can't even check Semitic data by yourselfI still don't believe you.Can you read Greek or Cyrillic ?Arnaud
> ============ ========= ==
>