From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 62015
Date: 2008-12-11
----- Original Message -----
From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>
> non-IE people
> Indo-Iranian-speaking conquerors
> Greek conquerors 1
> Greek conquerors 2
> Greek conquerors 3
>
> ==========
>
> Why should be the first layer be non IE ?
Unless IE originated in Greece there were other inhabitants beforehand.
======
This is a little bit too clear-cut.
We can also consider that Greece was inhabited by a close relative of PIE.
That dichotomy IE / non IE is a bit too brutal.
I agree Greek is not Armenian
but does it mean non Greek is equivalent to without Greek connections ?
A.
========
> We have plenty of connections with Anatolian.
>
> Where were proto-Greek speakers,
> if Indo-Iranian (??) arrived before proto-Greeks ?
> Where are the traces that Indo-Iranian (??) ever existed in Greece ?
>
> I don't buy a word of this theory.
Plenty of words have been considered as borrowings by some, some
have been claimed to be from an earlier-spoken language in Greece,
some from Indo-Iranian, but no one has agreed on all the particulars
or put them together in one theory.
Here are some words that show the a- added before consonant-clusters
(one of the oldest-known characteristics of a supposed substrate):
Av spar@... 'shoot, twig?', G aspáragos / aspháragos 'shoot (of a.)'
Skt sphut.- 'burst, open, bloom', sphot.a- 'blooming', asphota- 'kind
of plant', G asphódelos 'kind of flower'
=======
That a- prefix is an archaic feature of PIE (my PofV).
Cf. the numerous mails from Torsten on that supposed substrate
which I consider is IE.
What the problem with a-s-phu-t ??
Root is *bhuH "to grow"
Derivatives : a-s-bhHu
(with a metathesis what a big deal)
This is not recognised as IE
but why should it not ??
There are examples from Celtic, Italic, Greek, Germanic, etc...
A.