From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60425
Date: 2008-09-27
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...>
>> I also disagree that arklas is traceable to PIE.
>> this would mean that PIE was neolithic,
>> something I disagree with.
>
> I don't understand how this would mean that PIE was neolithic. And
> do you mean that you think that PIE was older or younger than
> neolithic?
> AJ
=======
This meaning "plow" in Lituanian arklas, if from PIE *arH3-tl-, necessarily
implies that PIE speakers were in a position to master agriculture, plowing,
etc.
I believe PIE was _older_ than Neolithic, much older in fact.
I have come to believe the terminum post quem is about -12 000 BC.
Arnaud
=============
>>
>> I suppose the alternation -tel-/-tr- which I consider was once
> allophonic,
>> became allomorphic in a second time.
>> So out of -tel- you can recreate -tel-/-tl-
>> and out of -ter- you can recreate -ter-/tr-
>
> I think you mean "and out of *-tr-* you can recreate -ter-/tr-", and
> I understand what you're saying here, I see your point. But in
> *ag^tla: (which is what I think the original topic was?) its
> formation must have been long enough after the *-tl->-tr- change that
> it wouldn't have happened in this word.
======
Yes, I mis-typed -ter- when I meant -tr-.
You are right.
Arnaud
=======