--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 2:33:42 AM on Friday, August 7, 2009, stlatos wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > *aq'wARXWunWA > *Oq'wOBBumWO > *OwOrumO > Mafuara wOrOmuO;
> > *Oq'wOBBumWO > *qOBuw > Guriaso kOru, Bb kubhO 'leg'
>
> > *OÑWuq'RwiyE > *OÑWëp'Rwëy > F këbw; Bb nëmbi; Biaka
> > bObwi; Kw fofo 'a sore'
>
> Gesundheit. This isn't a method: it's a magic wand.
>
> Brian
You have shown no method at all; you merely said that mb > B in Fas, and since you said it was related to Baibai the ev. I gave should be sufficient to disprove that even if you ignore all the other data and reconstructions I gave.
I do not need a complex reconstruction to show that Bi yEri, Bb yipu, F aeBi 'lime', are related, but I gave mine for the sake of more complete understanding; even without it you can see the B = p not B = mb. For F mEBkE, Bb mEmbkE 'star', why wouldn't k > r in Bb, as normal? The ev. shows that Bq did not > BR to keep two r-type sounds from being together. That should be enough even without Bi mOfri, which clearly has a labial and r, let alone Gur wOpu, etc.
Even just Fas and Baibai require complex reconstruction at times. F këbw; Bb nëmbi 'a sore' look related (final -w usually pronounced as voiceless -u) and an initial N- or Ñ- (uvular) hardly seems unlikely. Biaka bObwi must be related since it has both -bw- and -i, beyond any rational coincidence, and Kw fofo should be as well considering tabhi, tafi 'corpse', etc.
That both an initial ÑW > qW and qW > XW > f ( > v > bh, with bhw > bw, in Bi) isn't anything that should inspire incredulity. I stand by my work. If you have a different opinion, if only for Fas and Baibai, I'd like to see what other reconstruction you would offer.