--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid Beekes' "refutation" isn't actually a refutation. Also
> > Furnée's "Pelasgian" has little to do with Georgiev's. The Bulgarian
> > author, in his book "Introduction to the history of IE languages"
> > (3rd edition, 1981), characterizes Thracian as an IE-satem language
> > with a stop system similar to the one of Germanic and Armenian. He
> > then defines "Pelasgian" as a close relative of Thracian, which he
> > group together into a Thraco-Pelasgian group. And as its stop series
> > I is voiceless aspirated, then *p- would be rendered as *pH in
> > loanwords to Greek.
>
> That's nice. Now, if you want the rest of us to accept that pre-Greek was IE, you should present his arguments here.
>
Unlike these authors, I don't think "Pre-Greek" was a single language, but rather a label under which lie several substrates, both IE and non-IE.
> BTW, your 'Pelasgian' kséphas etc appears in Classical Arabic, according to Ishinan: khuswuf / kuswuf = total darkness.
> http://www.theegyptianchronicles.com/LINKS/ksf.html
> How do you explain that?
>
Arabic has *tons* of loanwords, even from Latin and Greek.
> > Precisely because the word is attested in other IE languages.
>
> Wrong. The fact that a word appears in an IE language does not mean it's a native word; if it did, we wouldn't be having this debate.
>
I'm afraid these are different things. The question is whether Greek borrowed these words from an IE language, even though the ulimate source might be non-IE.
> > You said it was no explanation but I think it is, because
> > denasalization is a rather common phonetic process. And it
> > consistently happens at word-initial in some paleo-IE dialect (I use
> > traditional reconstructions for the sake of clarity, not because I
> > endorse "voiced aspirated"):
> >
> > Altaic *mál^e 'wildcat' ~ IE *bhel- 'wildcat'
> > Altaic *maNga (~ -o) 'big, strong' ~ IE *bhengh-u- 'thick, abundant'
> > Altaic *n^ikrV 'a k. of thorny tree' ~ IE *dhergh-(no)- 'sloe tree,
> > blackthorn'
> > Kartvelian *marts'q'w- 'wild strawberry' ~ IE *bhreh2g^- 'strawberry'
> > (Latin fra:gum)
>
> That's nonsense. The fact that a word appears in Altaic or Kartvelian does not mean that they appear in some 'paleo-IE' dialect,
>
This way of argumenting is called "denial". What I meant is denasalization isn't so uncommon as you might think.
> and if they did, that would not explain the single supposed occurrence n- -> d- of Lithuanian. That is explained much better by the assumption of an original cluster *dhn- vel sim.
>
And this one is called "mine is better". I'm afraid you've got no case, Torsten.
> > But you forget the Indo-Iranian, Hittite and Altaic cognates whose meaning is 'night'.
>
> And that, in your opinion, has preference why?
>
> > Because the meaning shift 'night' > 'darkness' is straightforward.
>
> So are the shifts "darkness" > "night" and "darkness" > "fog".
>
But night is night and fog is fog.
> ?? You forgot to mention zéphyros "west wind" because sun sets around the west?
>
Precisely because 'west' is related to 'evening' and 'night'.