Re: g^H: an older suffix in PIE adjectives?

----- Original Message -----

From: Joao S. Lopes

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:59 AM

Subject: Res: [tied] Re: g^H: an older suffix in PIE adjectives?

for k^a - k^as-no > *ca:nus "white, grey"

----- Mensagem original ----
De: etherman23 <etherman23@... com>
Para: cybalist@... s.com
Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 11 de Julho de 2008 22:46:22
Assunto: [tied] Re: g^H: an older suffix in PIE adjectives?

--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@ ...> wrote:
>
> Just wanted to point out that Lehmann says two things that appear to
> be wrong. 1. He claims that there is no evidence for PIE *k^a-.
> What about Latin <cadere> "to fall" compared with Skt <çad-> "to fall
> off"?

To the best of my knowledge examples of *K^a, *Ke, and *Ki are rare.
The rarity (but not non-existence) of *b and voiceless aspirates has
long been used as evidence that these sounds didn't exist in PIE. It
seems that the same argument should hold for the above combinations of
sounds, especially given that there's evidence from different Satem
branches that *K^ > *K and *KW > *K in certain phonological
environments. It's been objected that a system with palatal stops and
labio-velar stops, but not velar stops, is typologically impossible
but such systems are known in Caucasian languages. Caucasian languages
almost certainly had an areal influence on PIE. John Colarusso has
argued for the genetic relatedness of the Northwest Caucasian and IE
families, but his evidence is pretty weak.I agree with Allan Bomhard
that the evidence presented indicates an areal influence.

---

Novos endereços, o Yahoo! que você conhece. Crie um email novo com a sua cara @ymail.com ou @rocketmail. com.