Re: dhuga:ter ('LARYNGEALS')

fournet.arnaud pisze:

> This answer is not very elegant.
>
> It also shows that you have seldom looked
> at NC database, you would know that
> the best thing to do is to search thru
> each item
>
> Tsakhur aq.w "face"
> Tsakhur h-agwa "to show"
> (h- seems to be a morpheme)

You said there was a NC *?_kw 'eye, see'. There's no such thing in the
NC database. You claimed you didn't make it up, so where does it come from?

> "To see/Eye" is not "face" in NC

So what? In my first language they are not etymologically connected
either, but that proves nothing about the link between 'eye' and 'face'
in Greek and Sanskrit. I didn't claim that the connection was
inevitable, only that it was natural -- to the point that in quite a few
languages 'sight' and 'face' are the same word.

> I consider NC is part of PIE.
> If you disagree, you can be open-minded enough
> to admit that the existence of languages so close
> geographically to PIE with this distinction
> is highly suggestive that PIE also did that.

The above doesn't even resemble a valid argument. Even if NC _were_ part
of IE (and there's no earthly reason to believe that it is), it couldn't
by itself tell us anything about distinctions made in PIE. Anyway, you
are attacking some sort of straw man. I never said the root */h3ekW-/
had 'face' as one of its original meanings. 'Face' is one of the
(several different) interpretations of the _compound_ *proti-h3kWo-. The
_primary_ word for 'face, front' (or something like that) in PIE was
*h2anti-.

Piotr

Piotr