----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 5:32 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)
----- Original Message -----From: Richard WordinghamSent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:16 AMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: PIE-Arabic Correspondences (was Brugmann's Law)--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@ ...>
wrote:
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.============
***
You might try reading a little more closely, Arnaud. Richard Wordingham wrote the words you attribute to me above. And I do not agree with him.
***
What about :
PIE sekw = Arabic sâq "follow in a row"
***
Amnesia? We just discussed this word exhaustively.
Patrick
***
PIE ghwen = Arabic qana? "kill violently"
PIE gwel = Arabic aqlawla "to fly in the air"
I'm afraid your idea about what should or should not is too simple.
Arnaud
============
***
Should or should not what? Please write so you meaning can be, at least, guessed at.
***
<snip>