From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 55800
Date: 2008-03-23
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] hoopoe
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> > ===========
> > No,
> > *ts became Eg. s
> > while *s became Eg. sh
> >
> > ts? became Eg. dj
> >
> > Arnaud
> > ============
>
> ***
>
> How about, say, three examples of Nostratic *ts -> Egyptian <s>?
>
> ***
> I will use Chinese to exhibit
> a really affricate.
***
WHOA!
I said Nostratic not Mandarin.
You cannot jump all over the place and have anything but a monologue.
***
>
> Number seven : *sap-
> PIE *sep-(t-m.)
> Egyptian *s_f_(x_w)
> Chinese qi1 < *tsat < *tsapt
> probably a LW from early PIE.
>
> Anaphoric *tsa?u
> PIE *sH3 < *tsa?u
> Egyptian *s_w
> Chinese *ci3 < tsa?u
> Cognate this time.
>
> To shine (e.g a star) *tsab-
> PIE slavic z_w-iezda
> Egyptian s_b_3
> In view of -3 = s?
> Slavic is from *sw_s?-t-
> Chinese zhao4 < tsyaw-s-
> It's even possible to
> admit that Chinese proves
> -s?- is part of the root : *tsabs?-
>
> Arnaud
>
> ============
<snip>
> In view of Cockney /?/ for /t/, it should not be so difficult to
> understand.
>
> I accept t > ?
> The reverse has to be substantiated.
> A.
>
> > ==========
***
Read it again, Arnaud.
Old Egyptian /t/ becomes /?/ and later /¿/
In Britain, it may come to that sooner rather than later.
***
> ***
>
> Egyptian <q> corresponds to PIE *(n)k^/*(n)g^ AND *(n)k/*(n)g
>
> Egyptian <q> corresponds to PIE *(n)k/*(n)g
>
> ***
>
> Please write pre-nasalized velar next time.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ================
***
ŋ
Is that better?
If I meant pre-nasalized velar, I would have said pre-nasalized velar.
Patrick