From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60590
Date: 2008-10-05
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > ==========
> > 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?
============
Because there are plenty of examples of that correspondence.
And these two words "full" and "flat" are two instances.
Arnaud
=============
> > 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?
==========
If you read my mail,
I do not rely on Starostin's reconstructions.
I just use the database because it's easy for everyone to look at it.
And Starostin's Chinese is from Yahontov.
Somebody much more serious and reliable than Matissoff.
Arnaud
===========
> And how do you explain that the two by two roots in ST and PIE are so
> phonologically and semantically similar?
> Torsten
===========
Because the root *p_l "full" is a super-cognate,
PIE + PAA + ST + Yukaghir
There is nothing to be "explained"
I can only describe the situation.
Arnaud
========