From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60502
Date: 2008-09-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
>> Where is your data ?
>
> You've had the references.
=========
Sorry but I clicked on a link that does not provide any data,
just the reconstructed form.
If I missed something, I'd be glad to get the right reference.
Arnaud
> They are exceptions to C1=C3. One can
> also see the first consonant assimilating to the third because the
> third consonant is the same as the first consonant of the word for
> '2'. That is a universal tendency.
===========
I don't understand what you mean.
C1=C3 is exceptional in Semitic.
Arnaud
=========
>
> You, on the other hand, need to argue for dissimilation for the
> exceptional languages.
=======
Well,
So far, I haven't any dissimilated data, so it's pending.
Arnaud
=============
>
> Didn't you claim that PIE was actually an AA language?
========
Yes,
But you can state that PIE has correspondences with PAA
and reject the idea that PIE is part of AA
These are two different statements.
Chinese also has correspondences with PIE and PAA and is part of none of
them.
Arnaud
==========
>
> Of course, if there was a limited period in which PIE received many
> loans from Semitic, one could also get regular correspondences that way.
> Richard.
===========
I don't think the word "correspondences" should apply to loanwords.
And so far, I have never seen a loanword from Semitic into PIE.
I have seen loanwords in the opposite direction.
Arnaud
==========