Re: Stacking up on standard works

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:

>
> I don't know how you arrived at the "Proto-North Caucasian" reconstruction "*=unddzE 'to hide, to steal, to conceal' (= stands for a class-prefix)". Starostin just reconstructs an isolated Proto-Lezghian (East Caucasian) root *pinc.w- 'feather' (based on the *actually attested* Agul word pinc. 'feather' -- further glossed as 'eyelash' without any explanation -- *only*), and doesn't even attempt to reconstruct a "North Caucasian" protoform.
>
> and further compare with Bengtson's Proto-Basque reconstruction *pinc-'membrane (covbering an egg or nut)'
>

AFAIK Starostin sr didn't include any Basque stuff in his own work. So Bengtson must have proposed the link and then Starostin jr included it in the database.

> The Proto-Basque reconstructions *pinc- and *pinca are based on the *actually attested* words mintz- and p(h)intz-; no "*bints-" root in sight here!
>

As I said earlier, Bengtson's "Proto-Basque" is seriously flawed, as he chose to bypass Mitxelena's "Pre-Basque" (Paleo-Basque in my own terminology). IMHO forms with initial m- are inherited from Paleo-Basque *b- while the ones with p- originated in a different variety of the ancient dialectal continuum. This is parallel to the already mentioned case of mendoitz vs. pendoitz.

> Starostin's supposed Burushaski cognates of this "Proto-North Caucasian" root, phenas and phinis 'brow, (fore-)head hair' are not semantically convincing... What has (fore-)head hair to do with membranes/eyelashes, or with feathers?
>

Exactly. This is why I discarded this etymology.

> Moreover, both Starostin and Bengtson reconstruct Proto-Basque *onci 'vessel; ship', not your "Paleo-Basque *bontsi".
>

This is a rather minor point, I think.