From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 51521
Date: 2008-01-20
----- Original Message -----From: Richard WordinghamSent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:16 PMSubject: [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.