--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-19 22:29, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> > Isn't it obvious that <-skir> "father-in-law" and <-skus>
> > "mother-in-law" (the - implies that a possessor prefix is
> > required) are straightforwardly derived within Burushaski
> > itself from <hir> "man" and <gus> "woman" (the same would
> > seem to apply to <gus> => <yugus> "daughter")?
>
> It is indeed, and Dick Grune even says so in his description of
> Burushaski.
What would s- mean, is it supposed to be causative? What would yu-
mean? Compare Skt yuvas'a- 'youth' along with all the other w>g. The
fact is sk- is the begining of both words in Arm., sr>s in both -skus
and dasen, etc. Analogy might have, say, changed u>i to make them
more sim. (though u>u/i/a in dia. 'boy'), but each word isn't compared
in just one part, each sound must obey all the changes I've given. Is
it really possibly that haGor shows both retention of h-, w>g, and
kY>r before w/u and that each rule has at least 2, and sometimes more,
examples?
With a little creative imagination it's easy to prove that
> just about any language is IE, provided that one is satisfied with two
> or three examples per proposed change
I gave more than that; more are on the way.
> and still admit irregularities and
> a liberal dose of "special treatment". E.g. Sean's *tw/dw > lt looks
> promising (though *dHw- > b-)
I did say that might be borrowed, as it is a somewhat 'tech' word,
especially if compared to gates, flaps. Since Greek treats these in
different ways, I hardly think it would be an irregularity even if native.
when one looks at *dwo: > alto and
> *kWetwo:r > walto; but *twe- > go- doesn't fit, so special treatment of
> pronouns "after another word" is invoked
I didn't invoke anything that isn't already in Armenian: *tu: > *_#
'u > du not *tHu; it would appear like a suppletive paradigm there
also if this simple sandhi weren't used.
Other pronouns are IE also; Khowar has verb endings like 2pl -tana:
> *-tna: > *-tma > -mi (-i < other verb end.), Br. 2pl pronoun -ma; Kh
mo 'that one', Br mo 'she', etc.
Since the pronouns are small and simple, almost any comparison might
be made for some, but shouldn't you at least compare those of other IE
in the region?
As such, Kh has xC, > xaC but other C, > uC (*xr,ghtos > ohts
'bear', *pr,stxos > prust- 'front') just like the variation in hawel
vs torum.
I'm not cherrypicking here, almost every word is IE and each part of
each example obeyed the same rules.
(though 'thou' is <go-> also
> sentence-initially). *kWe- supposedly becomes w- in <walto> but k- in
> <ka> "prob. ... depending on if preceded by V". _Probably_? When there
> are just two examples, each with a different outcome, and not a
shred of
> evidence that either of them occurs more frequently with a preceding
vowel?
I wouldn't use this alone as ev. of IE, but combined with all the
rest, which I've barely touched on, it seems good. Since ka is also
an independent word 'yet, still' (so not always after another in a
phrase) and also is added after a word for 'and _' any origin besides
IE doesn't make sense.