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

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we
discussing?

<snip>

> > Patrick:
> > PEAleut qeR, 'bite'?
> > What does that tell us?
> > You trot it out like it had any significance; and do not even give us
> > the
> > courtesy of explaining what _you_ think its bearing might be.
> >
> > ***
>
> We have been discussing the work "dog".
> (Hope you noticed that)
> We discussing if it should be *k^won (standard view) or *k(^)uH1on? (my
> view)
> (Hope this makes sense for you)
>
> Somebody (I don't remember who) said this is not a participle.
> And Rick asked where did -d- come from ?
>
> I think this word for "dog" whether it is suffixed by -on? or -nto- is
> derived from a verb meaning "to bite"
> and Proto-Eskimo-Aleut is so far this only place where the verbe "to bite"
> *kuH1 is still alive and has a synchronically motivated derivative meaning
> "wolf".
>
> In short, because courtesy is also a good reason to be short :
> I believe PIE inherited or created two words for "dog = biter" :
> *kuH1-on? (mobile stress)
> *kuH1-nto- (final stress)
>
> Arnaud
> ================

***

Patrick:

Why in the world would you "think" (you mean 'guess') that 'dog' derives
from a PIE root meaning 'bite'?

There is no PIE root meaning 'bite' of the form *ku:-!!!!!!!

And if we were to assume that Proto-Eskimo-Aleut (already suspicious because
it is a reconstruction) *qeR- derives from *kuH- (in what language, pray
tell?), no one in his right mind would reconstruct it for PIE unless it was
attested in two or three other branches of IE.

In short, you are ignorant of the most basic procedures of linguistics.

Get an education, and comeback in 20 years.

***