Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-

The term "livestock" seems to support Piotr, the
traditional idea of cattle as "money on the go" would
fit into a nomadic society

BTW: The "upside down chevron" is called a hachek in
English or haček if your computer can read it.

--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> To: "Cybalist" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:01 AM
> Subject: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-
>
> <snip>
>
> One of the points Piotr seeks to make in his paper
> is to argue for the
> existence, otherwise unattested, of the form *gWeu-
>
> The HS (my PA) root in Orel & Stolbova #516 is
> listed in three forms:
>
> *ca?-/*caw-/*cay-, "move upwards'
>
> The <c> has an inverted chevron.
>
> If one assumes that Nostratic is the parent of both
> PA and PIE, and these
> are inherited roots from Nostratic, presumably, at
> some point, PIE had them,
> too.
>
> In PIE, they would have the forms *gWa(:)H-, *gWei-,
> and *gWeu.
>
> As I mentioned before, there is more to relate these
> PA and PIE roots.
>
> That is the existence of PIE *gWem-, which almost
> corresponds with O&S #550,
> namely *cem-, 'go, enter' (same chevron, of course).
>
> I am working on a hypothesis that at least some PA
> <e> represent <e:>, a
> contraction of [ay]. Thus I suspect them *ce(:)m-
> represents an earlier
> *caym-.
>
> Why is this potentionally important?
>
> If the combining form were *gWei- rather than *gwe-,
> then it is possible
> that *gWeu- represents an an earlier *gWyeu-, a
> root-form that would, I
> think, bolster Piotr's argument.
>
> I have to admit that we have no discernible trace of
> a <y> in PIE *gWem- but
> Piotr will know best if *gWyem- could develop into
> *gWem- without
> palatalizing the initial.
>
> Whether *gWyem- ever existed or not, I am relatively
> certain that the
> Egyptian cognate Sm, go', was actually S(j)m, i.e.
> [sh-y-m].
>
> There are many who will question my connection of
> Egyptian <S> (esh) and <X>
> (bar-h) with PIE *g(^)W- and *k(^)w- but in the
> document I have been
> linking, are many examples of the correlation:
>
>
>

http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_table.htm

>
>
> Piotr, are you so unconvinced of the Nostratic
> hypothesis that you would
> have to judge these correlations as coincidental?
>
>
> Patrick
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ