Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

> Comparative evidence from PAA, eskimo-aleut, PU, ST shows *kuH1on?

is not

> guess-work.
> But you are sealed off into your tower of orthodoxy.
> Arnaud


> I will probably find more, because it fits into the picture.
> Intensive t+H1 > th (sanscrit)
> Intensive p+H1 > ph (germanic fall)
> Intensive kH1(w) > k^w
>
> I can explain satem and intensive with the same idea,
> Ockham's razor again.
> In fact, the zero degree is the major cause of phonological

unbalance of IE

> languages.
> I haven't looked at North caucasic yet, but I'm confident.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

> Internal IE data show stops were not laryngeals,
> and they seldom alternate together.
> External data confirm that stops were stops,
> and that laryngeals, especially H1, were more weakly articulated

consonants.

>
> External data, be it Basque, PAA, Uralic, ST, will never transform a
> fricative into a stop in PIE.
>
> Arnaud

I'm afraid you get no external data from those groups; comparative
reconstructions assuming that PIE and PAA, etc., come from a common
proto-language are doomed to create only fancies which will become
impossibly idiotic at any level of complexity.

The fact is all those groups of languages you mentioned and many
more are branches of IE.

The mergers of stops + H you mentioned aren't true and no H caused
kY in 'dog'.