From: Rick McCallister
Message: 60863
Date: 2008-10-13
> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>Meillet had very short lists of words that were W IE, vs. E IE. etc. I don't think he labeled them as substrate but the implication was there as I remember.
> Subject: Re: [tied] Present participle
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 8:01 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister
> <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 10/12/08, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> > > Subject: Re: [tied] Present participle
> > > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 6:49 PM
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I see. But another question I have is,
> if a root is
> > > > encountered only in Italic, Germanic, and
> Slavic, does that mean
> > > > we should probably reject it as being from
> PIE? I personally
> > > > feel that that is being rather harsh,
> especially when it is so
> > > > easy for languages to lose items of
> vocabulary (cf. Modern
> > > > English vs. Old English especially, but also
> many modern
> > > > European languages compared with their
> ancestors). Is there
> > > > another reason why you do not favour (a
> deliberate choice of
> > > > word here) the idea of a PIE root *ghow-
> (etc.) besides the
> > > > fact that if it occurred, it is only
> corroborated in Italic,
> > > > Germanic, and Slavic?
> > >
> > > Not 'should'. The fact that a particular
> IE word is encountered
> > > only in eg. Europe might make one suspect the
> word is substrate,
> > > but it's no proof. It takes more than that.
> > >
> >
> > Meillet had a short list of such words. Torsten, with
> all your
> > resources, you certainly have a lot more examples.
>
> Of words I'm certain are substrate? The archives are
> full of words I
> suspect are substrate, but I'm not 100% sure. What did
> you have in mind?
>
>
> Torsten