--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > That is if they are desc. from the same source;
>
> That is if those AfroAsiatic languages are descended(?) from the same source as the Iranian ones?
>
Yes; if the word is desc. from their common ancestor w no later borrowing.
> > a borrowing between such l. isn't impossible, which seems to be the
> > souce of:
> >
> > kapí- = ape/monkey, kapí- \ kapilá- = brownish/reddish RV S; qephi >Eg;
>
> How do you think your elaborate scheme for the "hoof" word will fare, once you admit the possibility of loan?
>
Such a complex proto-form is needed to expl. AA:
h_af Meh;
vs
h_uff- Arb;
implies -uwa- (conf. by k'wà:fà Hs;)
h_af (s)
vs
h_ëfáwf (p) = hoof/sole Meh;
implies -ffwa- (p) vs -ff < -ffwa (s), forming a broken plural
(prob. w-w>0 dis. in WCh)
the borrowing of kuf = hoof Ge'ez; from Arabic or a closely related l. implies an initial cluster of stop+fric. (kh_ < ??)
and
the similar borrowing of qàf = claw/talon Kh; from an Asian l. (pos. Arabic or a closely related l.) implies an initial cluster of stop+fric. eq. to q'X
and
WCh q'(?)w makes q'Xw in PAA likely (especially since q'Xw is found everywhere, as I've mentioned before)
all this implies PAA * q'X(u)wappwà which should be rel. to hoof E; by what I wrote and something like (since opt. changes can occur for some clusters):
*
q'Xwap'q'Xwà
q'Xwap'qW'XWwà
q'XwapqWXWwà
q'XwappFwà
q'Xwappwà
q'Xwappwà q'Xuwappwà