From: Rick McCallister
Message: 51535
Date: 2008-01-20
> I am not prepared to completely redo PAA which, incybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> my view, would be required. Criticizing Ehret would
> require criticizing his whole system of PAA
> phonology, and I do not have the resources
> *reference books here at home) to do it, nor really
> the interest.
>
> I will look into Tamazight.
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick
> McCallister<mailto:gabaroo6958@...>
> To:
>
><proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language%40msn.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic
> Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)
>
>
> Yes, there are problems but at least cite Ehret
> and
> whoever else has done AA roots. If you disagree,
> say
> so and why. It will help your credibility.
> My understanding is that Arab loanwords come
> mainly
> from other AA languages (mainly Aramaic, Egyptian,
> Berber) and IE (mainly Persian, Greek and
> Romance).
> And that Romance, Egyptian and Berber loanwords
> tend
> to be regionalisms. Si if a word is Classical
> Arabic,
> check it against Aramaic, Persian and Greek. But
> if
> you're dealing with regionalisms such as
> burtuqal/burtu'an "orange", skwila "school",
> znafuria
> "carrot", it's probably a loanword
> But do at least look through Berber --there are
> Tamazight and other dictionaries online. There
> should
> be etymological dictionaries for Berber and Hausa,
> possibly for Somali, who knows for Omotic.
>
> --- Patrick Ryan
>
> wrote:McCallister<mailto:gabaroo6958@...<mailto:gabaroo6958%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > 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
> >
>
>cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > To:
> >
>
>
> ><fournet.arnaud@...<mailto:fournet.arnaud%40wanadoo.fr><mailto:fournet.arnaud@...<mailto:fournet.arnaud%40wanadoo.fr>>>
> > 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"
> >
>
>
> > wrote:cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Patrick Ryan
> > > To:
> >
>
>
> >__________________________________________________________
> > > 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, andhttp://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ<http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ><http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ<http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>>
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
>
>
> >=== message truncated ===
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>