From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62014
Date: 2008-12-11
----- Original Message -----
From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>
>
> I disagree. In Khowar plain velars changed o > a or prevented a > A
> (low back V) > O > o, as in *sxàL+ > *s.àl > s.òr 'salty', *n+ >
> *uns.xàl+ > wexàl 'unsalty'.
>
> ========
> Do you have an example with a word which is not an obvious loanword ?
If you think Skt u:s.ara- is "obviously" the source of s.òr 'salty'
you should consider other borrowings:
u- > we- before fric.:
Iranian *uzayana+ > wezén 'last night'
StWLatoSY WxroHtYe
======
Why is this not just an alternation wes/us ?
A basic feature of PIE applied to a root *wes ?
A.
======
Skt is.u- > *üs.u > wes.ù 'arrow'
StWLatoSY WxroHtYe
======
i don't understand the relevance of this example ?
Is this even a IE word ?
A.
======
u- retained before stop > fric.:
Skt udaká- > *uDaGà > ùG 'water'
*xWougYsto+ > *o:ks.t.ya+ > usaki 'cold', usakéy- 'become cold'
u- retained before fric. > stop:
Skt us.t.ra- > *ut.rà > ùt. 'camel'
StWLatoSY WxroHtYe
=======
Do you seriously think that "camel" is a less obvious LW than "salt" ??
A.
If you want to claim a rule is optional, or something similar, give
some evidence, but I can't agree that anything you might say would be
"obviously" true.
Another unusual positive-negative set is srùng 'horn', l.ùng
'hornless'. Is borrowing able to account for this?
StWLatoSY WxroHtYe
=======
Let's not forget that the original issue what velars's influence on *e/a
I'm afraid you have not started addressing the issue.
A.
PS
You have been requested to avoid idiosyncratic gibber.