Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

On 2008-04-21 12:38, fournet.arnaud wrote:

> Nothing in Italic, Celtic, Anatolian, Toharian, indo-iranian.
>
> When is a word of limited extension, according to you ?

Attestation gaps are always to be expected, especially for a lexeme
which isn't part of the basic vocabulary (and however you define "basic"
meanings, 'hedgehog' is not one of them). There may have existed an
alternative word for the hedgehog, *g(^)He:r, with a more limited range
of attestation (Greek, Italic), but *h1eg^Hi- is pretty widespread,
especially for an insectivore. As there are no hedgehogs east of the
Ural mountains, I'm not surprised that the word doesn't occur in Tocharian.

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

I can only shrug at your definition of "central". Phrygian and Ossetic
cognates should probably be added as well, by the way.

> zGva "sea" G.C sajwa ; Greek Aegian (sea), Anatolic ahhijawa,

Gms. *saiwiz has a plausible IE etymology. The rest is an assembly of
junk, not a cognate set. Cast your net wide and you will always find
plenty of lookalikes, especially with so much semantic leeway.

> zGar "hedgehog" German igel ; PU *sejel

Repeat it as many times as you will, it won't become any stronger.
Incidentally, *s'ijili (or the like) is given as the PFU reconstruction
(Sammallahti). Where did you get a PU 'hedgehog' from?

> 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 ?

I'm just too cautious to be misled by the glister of fool's gold.

Piotr