long, flat, full

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> >>
> >> Finally, STC reconstructs yet another supposedly unrelated root
> >> in this semantic area, *blin,~*plin, 'full' (#142), underlying
> >> such forms as WB prañ´ 'be full', phrañ´ 'fill'; Mikir plen, 'be
> >> full', peplen, 'fill', etc. From what has already been said, it
> >> should be clear that this set represents the very same etymon as
> >> #138 and #352
> >
> > Andrew
> > ==========
> > My point of view about PIE *l is that this "surface"
> > correspondence covers more than one proto-phoneme.
> > When PIE *l corresponds with PAA *l as in *pel = full = Arabic
> > Hafil = Touareg balal,
> > the expected correspondence in ST should be yod.

Why?

> > For that matter, these ST roots are highly dubious.
> > Arnaud
> ==========
> You can find the real cognates in Starostin :

OK, so Matisoff is dubious because Starostin isn't?

> For *pel "full"
>
> Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *phŭŋ Meaning: abundant
> Chinese: 豐 *phuŋ luxuriant, abundant.
> Tibetan: dpuŋ great number
> Comments: Bodo buŋ-ga be big, buŋ be full.
> My comment : ST *pojng

> For *pel "flat"
>
> Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *pÄ"rH Meaning: flat
> Chinese: 扁 *pÄ"nÊ" flat and thin, 楄 *b_Ä"̆n board under body in
> coffin.
> Burmese: pjań plank, flat surface (OB pjan).
> Kachin: phjen2 be spread out and thus flat, (H) bjen be flat and
> wide.
> Lushai: pÄ"r (perÊ") flat and thin, KC *PÄ"r.
> My comment : ST *pajin
> I'm not sure Lushai is ST.

And how do you explain that the two by two roots in ST and PIE are so
phonologically and semantically similar?


Torsten