From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61101
Date: 2008-10-31
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
>
> Arnaud Fournet pisze:
>
>> The graphic invention of k^w distinct from kW is a way of "saving" a
>> couple of words that are very dubious in the first place. As I
>> mentioned quite a lot of times, dog k^won is bad, it should be kuH2on
>> as confirmed by all the rest of the world but the indo-europeanist
>> dogma won't move an inch, I suppose.
>
> For the very good reason that the zero grade is *k^un-/*k^wn.-,
> certainly not *k^uh2n-. "The world" is not enough. A PIE reconstruction
> has to fit the IE data in the first place.
============
Latin can-is better fits kh2n-
I agree a PIE reconstruction has to fit IE data,
and *k^un can certainly not be taken for granted.
If you start saying that LAtin can-is is a peculiar development,
why should your k^un not be the same thing ?
How do you explain Latin can-is ?
Arnaud
==========
>
> > horse ek^wos is worse, as this
>> is not even a PIE-stage word and internal correspondances within IE
>> data are horrendous.
>
> What's so horrendous about it? The fact that Gk. (h)ippos is not a
> perfect match for the rest? That's just one branch showing an
> idiosyncratic development. You're trying to make a mountain out of an
> anthill.
=======
No,
Greek does not work,
and looks like a Tocharian loanword
Anatolian does not work
and looks like an Iranian loanword.
Indo-iranian words don't make phonological sense,
unless you change the laws of Phonology.
As a matter of fact, none of the words for horses or foals works.
Thank you for showing that dogmas don't care about data.
Arnaud
=