Re: *a/*a: ablaut

If it is, it is.

If it is not, it still is.

Please come to Washington. We need more acute logic like that.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] *a/*a: ablaut


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:14 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] *a/*a: ablaut
>
>
> Many of Kuhn's so-called *a-words have cognates in Sumerian that
> have <a>.
>
> Unless your proposing a Sumerian substrate in Europe, it is easier
> to assume
> that, with a word like *bhar-, the <a> is original (Sumerian par).
>
> Patrick
> > ===============
>
> The most obvious conclusion
> is most of the words (listed by Kuhn)
> are not cognates
> but internal loanwords within PIE boundaries.

I think the best we can do is this:
If a PIE root in -a- has 'PIE cognates' with the ablaut vowel, it
should tentatively be considered a loan from an 'old IE' substrate
into a newer one.
If it has cognates in languagers outside of PIE, it should tentatively
be considered a loan either from those languages to PIE, or a loan
from some unknown language into both language groups.


Torsten