Re: Limitations of the comparative method

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Limitations of the comparative method


>
> Applying my rules for conversions between Arabic and PIE, dhahab can
> easily
> be related to PIE *ta:w-, 'smelt'.
>
> Patrick
> =============
> Tsalam? t?ob
>
> The cognate of PIE *tah2-(w) is
> th_gh_b : to smelt (especially snow or ice)
> which is phonetically a beautiful equation with
> LAtin tab-êo
> t = th
> H2 = gh (velar voiced spirant)
> b = b
>
> Another interesting word is Uralic word for "spring"
> which somehow looks like *taw or *tu-nd-
> but there is no trace of (gh) which should surface as -j- yod.
> Hungarian tavasz
> Etc
> but it should be **täv out of *tajw-
> it does not work
> so "spring" is not "ice-thaw" in Uralic
>
> Arnaud.

***

You make a typically American mistake when you equate "gutturals" since
Americans cannot ordinarily hear the difference between a true guttural, a
laryngal or pharyngal, and a dorsal fricative.

But PIE *gh was not a voiced dorsal fricative (/G/) ¿ain, it was an
aspirated, voiced STOP.

The outcome of THSA-HA-P?A is *ta(:)v.


Patrick