From: tgpedersen
Message: 62342
Date: 2009-01-02
>Wow.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2009-01-01 11:00, tgpedersen wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, so what you're saying is that the language families usually
> > > considered independent of IE, eg. Uralic, Semitic, Austronesian,
> > > Basque, Kartvelian, Uto-Aztecan, Bantu, Khoi-San, are in fact
> > > IE? That is a very unusual point of view.
> >
> > More specifically, they are Indo-Iranian, which is even more
> > revolutionary. It seems to mean that, e.g. Sanskrit is more
> > closely related to Navajo than it is to Greek or Latin
>
> Yes. Regular correspondences exist, but are unusual. They
> include, for example, Iranian changes of s > x > G > N (often > n)
> in many positions, and nw > m.