From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52077
Date: 2008-01-30
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: 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.
> ==============
> tsalam? t?ob
>
> Sorry,
> but your answer makes things worse.
> Arnaud
> ===============
>
> The Nostratic form for Hebrew ?ab, 'father', is *?ap?(u). Nostratic *p?
> becomes PS *b and PIE *b(h)/w.
> =======
> Hebrew is clear. b is from *b.
> *p? becomes -f- in Hebrew.
>
> Arnaud
> =============
***
Hebrew <b> is from PS *b.
So what is the problem?
***
In this particular case, *w is equivalent:
> PIE Ha(:)wo-s, 'maternal grandfather'.
> ==========
> Another word.
> ?ab : father
> dzaw : grand-father
>
> Arnaud
> ==============
> These correspondences are all detailed at
> http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_table.htm
> ==========
> I don't trust that a second.
> Arnaud
> ==========
***
Well, at least try reading it so you fairly represent my system if you wish
to criticize it.
***
> 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?
> ========
> What a shame !
> Emphatic consonants are glottalized in Ethiopian Semitic.
> Arnaud
> =============
***
Are you saying Hebrews are Ethiopians?
***
> It is originally a retroflexed apical before a _back vowel_. In
> actuality, the Hebrew has <natan> not <naTan>.
> ==========
> What a shame !
> Modern Hebrew is mostly spoken by European Jews
> These people (of French, german, russian, etc) ascent
> cannot say a glottalized or emphatic consonant.
> This time your Beat-Ruhlen score is great !
>
> Arnaud
> ===========
***
Even more reason to ask what possessed you to write <t?> for Hebrew simple
/t/-/Þ/?
***
> Nostratic *t?a corresponds to PS *t.
> =======
> Then it means Nostratic isn't worth studying.
> Thank you for warning me I shouldn't waste my time.
> Arnaud
> ==============
***
It is very difficult to tell what you have studied.
***
> Nostratic *tsa/i is the source of PA *dh;
> ========
> Teratological phonology.
> Both *ts and *s become *s in PIE.
> Arnaud
> ============
***
As usual, abysmally wrong! Nostratic *ts becomes PIE *t(h).
***
> 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'.
> =========
> Apart from the Teratological **Nostratic *t?s**
> I agree.
> Arnaud
> =========
***
Well, Nostratic *t?s is PIE *dh.
Patrick
***