From: Rick McCallister
Message: 52512
Date: 2008-02-08
> No, Rick, it is an upside down hachek.http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_table.htm
>
> 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:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > >____________________________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > 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, andhttp://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
>
> >____________________________________________________________________________________
> >
>