From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61206
Date: 2008-11-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: [pieml] Labiovelars versus Palatals + Labiovelar
Approximant
>
> On 2008-11-01 11:07, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
>
>> In other words,
>> there is a "just-necessary" reconstruction *k^uo(:)n coherent with IE
>> data
>> and a "deep" reconstruction *kuH2o(:)n coherent with macro-comparative
>> data.
>>
>> Did I miss something in your explanations ?
>
> Yes, you did. It's true, *k^uh2on- is compatible with the disyllabic
> variant of the attested shape of the nom.sg. (Skt. s'uva:, Gk. kuo:n).
> On the other hand, however, it is incompatible with other case forms,
> such as the gen.sg. (Skt. s'unah., Gk. kunos) or the dat.pl. (Skt.
> s'vabHih., _never_ *s'uvabHih.), which unambiguosly point to *k^un-ós,
> *k^wn.-bHís. If you want to do macro-comparative reconstruction, you can
> propose whatever you wish as a Proto-Nostratic or Proto-Whatever word
> for 'dog', but *k^uh2on- will not work for Indo-European.
============
I disagree with your last sentence.
Once *k^uh2-on- has been reduced to *k^won-,
it can be the basis for other cases.
I really cannot see why it should not work.
It obviously does.
Maybe you can label *k^uh2on- pre-PIE if you prefer keeping *k^won- for PIE
proper.
Does this word appear in Anatolian ?
Arnaud
============