Re: Languages and Genes in Collaboration: some Practical Matters

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

> --- Richard Wordingham <richard@...>
> wrote:

> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
> > <swatimkelkar@> wrote:

> > > "... English and Hindi ...
> > > share only some five
> > > clear cognates on the
> > > Swadesh 100-word list (Campbell and Poser in press).

> > who - kaun - not clear
> > what - kya: - not clear

> But if you see both pairs together, you notice the
> wh-k parallel

True. I'm pretty sure they count by Swadesh's rules (or at least, the
one set I've read, if he gave several). I think having the pairs
'this' and 'that' and the pair 'who' and 'what' makes for statistical
mischief. After all, given Thai _ni:_H_ 'this' and _nan:_H_ 'that',
you could set up an English-Thai equivalence /ð/ <-> /n/! Having
'man' and 'human being' may also be troublesome.

What I wrote was ambiguous. I meant another three cognates, not
another three clear cognates in the following:

> > There are another three I am not so confident about:
> > eye - ã:kh
> > (finger)nail - na:khu:n
> Not unless you know Anglo-Saxon or another Gmc language

The Germanic vowel (*au) in the 'eye' word does not match the rest of
IE (*o). I wasn't sure about the nasalisation in the Hindi form, but
I now think it got there by metathesis (Sanskrit oblique form
_akSN-_). IIr *kH in the 'nail' word does not match *gH in the rest
of IE, and I must say the Hindi form looks suspiciously close to the
Persian form.

> > nose - na:k - Parallel stems?
>
> but nark and na:k are definitely clear :>

Richard.