From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61103
Date: 2008-10-31
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar
Approximant
>
> Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
>
>> Latin can-is better fits kh2n-
>
> But it doesn't fit *k^uh2(o)n-, and that's what you proposed. *k^uh2n-
> would have given Lat. *cu:n-. Did the *u disappear just like that?
==========
When unstressed, all vowels disappear in PIE stage,
so kuH2on- when stressed on kuH2on-""i
becomes kH2n-""i > kan-""i
U disappears like all other vowels do.
No big deal.
Arnaud
============
>
>> I agree a PIE reconstruction has to fit IE data, and *k^un can
>> certainly not be taken for granted.
>
> Why "taken for granted"? Gk. kunos, Skt. s'unas, Lith. s^uns, OIr. con
> simply point to *u in the weak cases.
========
What about Latin can-is ?
You still have not explained how Latin fits here.
Arnaud
=====
>
>> 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 ?
>
> I don't have to. I have made no claims about <canis> being a member of
> this word-family.
=========
You little cheap cheater...
You can't choose which data you want to explain
and which data you want to discard
because of your preconceived dogmas.
Arnaud
=========
>
>> ======= No, Greek does not work, and looks like a Tocharian loanword
>> Anatolian does not work and looks like an Iranian loanword.
>
> Even if it's a loan in Anatolian, what difference does it make? It's
> still a loan within IE.
========
BS
If it's not a direct cognate from PIE,
but a LW within IE languages
then
it ruins the premice
this word is PIE stage
I suppose you understand that.
It makes a big difference.
Arnaud
=============
>
>> Indo-iranian words don't make phonological sense, unless you change
>> the laws of Phonology.
>
> What are those "laws of Phonology" and who dictates them? The
> Indo-Iranian forms match those found in Tocharian, Germanic, Italic,
> Celtic and Baltic.>
> Piotr
==========
The problem is the forms that don't match the others.
Arnaud
==========