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

No, Rick, it is an upside down hachek.

Unfortunately, since I switched to plain text, c-hachek or s-hachek will not
come through. It did when I was sending .htm's.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] 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
>
>