Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

If we find a word in Arabic, we have two choices: 1) to regard it is deriving from Semitic, or 2) to regard it as a loanword. I think most would agree that native words greatly outnumber loanwords, so it is a fair presumption that the odds favor any Arabic word being native, I.e. derived from Semitic.

We have excellent Arabic dictionaries which facilitate etymological comparisons.

Unless we have good reason to label an Arabic word a loanword, it is likely (but not certain) that the word derives from Semitic.

Our Egyptian sources are also well developed so that it is often possible to match Egyptian and Arabic words.

Almost everyone agrees that the AA work that has been done is highly unreliable so that comparisons between PIE and PAA are not very feasible. I agree, they would be most desirable; and if I could use them, I would.

As for Berber, is there a Berber etymological dictionary which links Berber to either Arabic or PAA? If there is, I do not know of it. Hence, Berber is only a grace-note.

With Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic, I am afraid my impression is that the proto-languages that have been reconstructed are as questionable as the PAA material. I could always be convinced otherwise, I suppose.

So, a comparison among PIE, Arabic, and Egyptian seems most practical in view of the materials available.

Of course, I add Sumerian, which gives us some insight into the original vowels.

Patrick

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

From: Rick McCallister

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:03 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

PIE Arabic is a waste of time --go back to AA and you
can't find the AA root, at least give roots from
Semitic, Berber, Egyptian, Cushitic, Omotic and
Chadic. No one will take PIE Arabic seriously unless
you're positing loanwords

--- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@ wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> To: cybalist@... s.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:44 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Re:
> PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)
>
>
>
> I will add :
> sekw "to follow" = Arabic *saq
>
> ***
>
> There is _no_ *saq meaning 'follow' in standard
> Arabic.
> Patrick
> ***
>
> Very often, I wonder why such a level of
> incompetence is put up with on this forum.
> You claim proto-world- esque reconstructions
> but you don't even have a good Arabic dictionary :
>
> Kazimirski tome 1 page 1167 :
> sâq : "suivre, aller à la suite ; se suivre les
> uns les autres"
>
> Arnaud
>
>
>
>
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ