--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-01-21 22:39, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 1. Why is a safe bet?
> > Do you know Albanian verbs constructed with -th- ? I didn't.
> >
> > If yes, please shows us these verbs
>
> Of course it's part of the root.
Thanks. So the root is puts isn't it?
What was the Original Onomatopeea in this case and where is the
verbal suffix?
> > 2. If -th-, belongs to the root we cannot have other root here
but
> > *puk^- => end this is quit the same root as in English 'fuck'
>
> You're assuming, without any basis, that the word is as old as the
> hills. If it goes back to Common Albanian, it was something like
*puts-
> at that time. It's onomatopoeic enough for my taste, just like Eng.
buss
> or Italian bacio.
a) whenever we have a -th- in an Albanian formation (that couldn't
signal us a recent f) we can safely goes back for a PAlb. formation
BEFORE ROMAN TIMES (and this is 'at least' enough for my
argumentation)
b) and BEFORE ROMAN times we don't have PAlb. verbs formation
Onomatopeic or not in -th-
d) I can accept pu~bu (onomatopeea) + a verbal suffix ...I hope you
will still propose a verbal suffix...
e) But *pu~bu + -ts-? for a PAlb Verb Formation? I never saw
something similar...
So this is my argument against an ONOMATOPEIC formation.
g) Next, You cannot use only the taste here,
you need arguments to reject Alb. puth < PIE *puk^-
> Note that we still can't be 100% sure that they have anything in
common
> with each other. Science is not about absolute certainty but about
> hypotheses that best fit the available evidence. I accept this
> particular connection as a plausible hypothesis because there is at
> present no other hypothesis that could be preferred.
> Piotr
What you said above, is a pure sophism, Piotr, that didn't serve in
any direction to our topic.
Of course we are talking inside a defined model that could be
finally wrong, or more or less accurate...
But if, inside this model:
burta 'belly' (< barukta:) is not from *bHer- 'carry',
brandza 'cheese' is not from *bHer- 'boil, ferment'
malai 'kind of flour' is not from *melh-,
pandza 'fabric' is not from *peh2n-,
bardza 'stork' is not from *bHerg^h1-,
Let's forget all the Indo-European reconstructions, not only for
Romanian-Substratum but, in general, I mean ....
because we both know that the words above have a probability
different from zero to be Chinese words, isn't it?
Marius