Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:22 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE
rules


> On 2008-04-21 11:44, fournet.arnaud wrote:
>
>> Not just my problem,
>> A word with limited IE dialectal extension,
>
> Not particularly limited. Apart from Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Greek,
> it has an Armenian cognate as well.
=======
Nothing in Italic, Celtic, Anatolian, Toharian, indo-iranian.

When is a word of limited extension, according to you ?

I think this one is clearly of limited extension.
Basically central PIE and only partially so.

Arnaud
===========

>> Do you seriously imagine that PIE can be reconstructed in complete
>> ignorance
>> of what languages are around IE languages ?
>
> It can't be reconstructed in the way you approach it, where ghost
> connections with miscellaneous external groups are given as much weight
> as solid IE material.
>
> Piotr
======

It's not at all solid,
and this should be the beginning of a clean inquiry.
As a matter of fact, four kartvelian words with the same pattern exist in
the same set of IE languages :

zGva "sea" G.C sajwa ; Greek Aegian (sea), Anatolic ahhijawa,
zGar "hedgehog" German igel ; PU *sejel
dzixgi "goat" *ag-yos ; Sanscrit substrate cha:ga
saxli "house-room"
You have plenty of words in both IE and PU that display H_gh or s_H
reflexes.

Are you that blind ?

Arnaud
=========