From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52057
Date: 2008-01-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] IS PIE * DERU EXCLUSIVELY INDO-EUROPEAN ?
> One difference between my system or correspondences and Bomhard's is the I
> do _not_ believe in the co-existence of Nostratic *t? and *d.
> ==============
> Tsalam? t?ob
>
> Then your reconstruction is hopeless.
> There was a contrast between voiceless, voiced and glottalized
> for all series : labial, dental, velar.
>
> PAA b versus PIE w :
> ?ab 2 meanings : "father ; no"
> PAA p? versus PIE b :
> lap? "lip"
> Hausa leBe versus PIE lab
>
> PAA t? versus PIE d :
> t?a "to give"
> Hebrew (na)t?(an)
>
> PAA d versus PIE d :
> d_?-b, d_?-k "dog" (vowel i and a)
>
> PAA d versus PIE dh :
> dh "breast"
> Hebrew dad = PIE dh_H1-
>
> etc
>
> Arnaud
***
The manner of presentation is so confused that I must start anew to make any
kind of a sensible response.
The Nostratic form for Hebrew ?ab, 'father', is *?ap?(u). Nostratic *p?
becomes PS *b and PIE *b(h)/w. In this particular case, *w is equivalent:
PIE Ha(:)wo-s, 'maternal grandfather'.
These correspondences are all detailed at
http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_table.htm
For Hebrew "(na)t?(an)", I prefer indicating the medial emphatic as T; I do
not understand why an emphatic should be notated as if it were a glottalized
stop? It is originally a retroflexed apical before a _back vowel_. In
actuality, the Hebrew has <natan> not <naTan>.
Nostratic *t?a corresponds to PS *t.
Thus, Nostratic *t?(a) corresponds to PIE *d, and no problem is presented by
PIE *do:(w)-, 'give'. Arabic has ?a¿Tâ, 'give'. If we abstract the emphatic
and the semiconsonant buried in â, which may or may not be justified, we are
left with *T-w.
Emphatic T corresponds to PS and PA *T but Nostratic *t?o, which corresponds
to PIE *d. The emphatic (retroflex) articulation of *t?o is an PA
innovation.
I know of no PS <da?ab>, 'dog'. There is, of course, Arabic dhi?b(un),
'wolf'. Nostratic *tsa/i is the source of PA *dh; and yields PIE *t(h). Thus
'dog', if related, would have to be a loanword from OHG or Dutch which had
<d> as a reflex of PIE *t(h). Your strange *d-?-k would give something like
English *tVg.
Arabic <dadâ>, 'nursing mother', the same word as your Hebrew <dad>, is a
result of PS *d, PA *d, and Nostratic *t?s. The PIE reflex is *dh, which
ties here into *dhe:(i)-, 'nurse', and *dhedhn-, '(sour) milk'.
So, you see, my system of correspondences works out pretty well when someone
actually makes the effort to learn and understand it.
Patrick
***