Re: *ku(m)p- (/*kunkW-?)

From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60223
Date: 2008-09-22

----- Original Message -----
From: Joao S. Lopes
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

I think Peleshet = Pelasgos.

=============

Why not !?

The problem is <peleshet> is a very very very liberal reading of what
Egyptians spelled *pursac^.
With a full decomposition in vowels and consonants.
The removal of vowels is nothing but a licence to look for crazy
identifications.

And at the time the Sea People threatened Egypt, the system made a
distinction between r and l.
So that we have to assume that the word is most probably *pursac^ and less
probably *pulsac^.
Now you can add that *u may stand for *o and *a may stand for *e.

*pursac^ or *porsec^ is still a long way to Pelasgos.
The first consonant is ok, the rest does not work.

The same applies to philistines.
This identification, however traditional it may be, is completely
unsupported by what Egyptians really wrote.

Arnaud

=============