From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 54272
Date: 2008-02-28
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA
>
> ***
> Projecting *t? to a time frame beyond Nostratic, the parent of PIE and
> PAA,
> is unnecessary.
> P.
> ***
> There is a clear necessity to have both *d and *t?
> to account for clear correspondances.
> PIE *d = ST *dz = PU -r- = PAA *dh
> PIE *t? = ST *ts = PU -l- = PAA *t?
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===================
<snip>
There is no PIE *t? nor PAA *t? - who besides you and Bomhard asserts this?
PIE *d does not relate to PAA *dh. If you think it does, provide 4 or 5
examples.
Your PU equivalencies, as Jouppe will tell you, are wrong.
For Sino-Tibetan, see
http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-SINO-TIBETAN-10_table.htm
Patrick