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

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

From: Patrick Ryan

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 2:36 PM

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

 

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

From: fournet.arnaud

To: cybalist@... s.com

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 5:32 AM

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

 

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

From: Richard Wordingham

To: cybalist@... s.com

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:16 AM

Subject: [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.

==========

I was actually writing to the previous author : M. Wordingham.

Arnaud

 

***

What about :

PIE sekw = Arabic sâq "follow in a row"

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

 

These are examples showing that Arabic /q/ and PAA *q in general

have more than one origin : not just *k?

and correspond to either *g or any labio-velar : *gw, *kw, *ghw.

 

The word -should- refers to the preceding sentence :

""A biliteral sq **should** correspond to *seg, *seg^ or *segW.""

 

So my point of view is : No, It should not.

Things are more complicated than that.

 

Arnaud

 

====================