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

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 51521
Date: 2008-01-20

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:16 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@ ...>
wrote:

> fournet.arnaud wrote:
>> I will add :
>> sekw "to follow" = Arabic *saq

> In the latest communication, the word now appears as "sâq", with
the circumflex indicating a long <a>.

I agree that it would have been much better to make the identity of
the words obvious from the outset.

> Thus, the verbal root is thus not s-q as suggested by "saq" (to
correspond with *sekW-) _but_ s-w-q, which is obviously not a match
for *sekW.

Except that Semitic did form triliterals from biliterals by inserting
a weak consonant as the second consonant - s-w-q even looks rather
appropriate. We do have a minor voicing problem, though. A biliteral
sq should correspond to *seg, *seg^ or *segW.

***

What I believe I have found is that PIE *ng and *nk _both_ correspond to Arabic/PAA <q>.

***
> The dictionary I am using by Lane is the premier standard for
Arabic dictionaries in English, and obviously, has an entry for sâqa
(s-w-q), meaning 'to drive'. This is the word from which suq, the Arab
market, is derived.
<snip>

The semantics certainly seem to be against the correspondence.

 <snip>

 

Richard.