From: Torsten
Message: 69380
Date: 2012-04-19
>As long as you haven't defined which IE languages this 'paleo-IE dialect' fed words tp, it is unnecessary by Occam.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > The fact that a word appears in Altaic or Kartvelian does not mean
> > that they appear in some 'paleo-IE' dialect.
> >
> > > This is because you stick to the traditional PIE model, which is
> > > both incomplete (it doesn't explain all the IE facts) and
> > > isolacionst.
> >
> > No, it is because I'm sticking to logic. The fact that a set of
> nasal-initial words appears in Altaic or Kartvelian on the one hand
> and in a denasalized form in IE does not necessarily mean that they
> appear in some 'paleo-IE' dialect, since they could all have been
> borrowed from a now lost language, being denasalized when borrowed
> by PIE and not when when borrowed by Altaic and Kartvelian.
> >
> This is precisely my point: your "PIE" is precisely the paleo-IE
> dialect where this word became denasalized. As I said many times,
> IMHO the so-called "PIE roots" don't belong to a single language but
> come from several paleo-dialects.
> > How do you explaim then that the "fog" word is denasalized only inBut how would *Hn-/*Hr- explain the d- of debesìs?
> Lithuanian, but your examples (presumably) are denasalized in many
> more IE languages?
> >
> The fact the nasal survived to denasalization makes me think the
> word had originally a laryngeal at word-initial: *Hn- (clusters
> *Hn-/*Hr- are rather common in Proto-NEC, as for example in the
> 'night' word), then lost in "PIE".
> Remember that besides *nebh- we've also got *ºnbh- (e.g. GreekBut we don't need a laryngeal for getting a- from zero-grade *n.-.
> aphrós 'foam' < *ºnbh-r-o-).