>It depends on the actual definition of what is an "IE language", where some people (not me) includes Etruscan, for example. We could also question the reconstruction of the stop system of "PIE" and so on.
> You didn't answer the question. How is Georgiev's Pelasgian
> relevant to psÃ©phas etc?
> > As I said before, this has to do with the stop system of
> > Thraco-Pelasgian, which according to Georgiev was similar to the
> > Germanic one in what series I was voiceless aspirated. So when Greek
> > /ph/ corresponds to /p/ in other IE languages, this would indicate a
> > Pelasgian borrowing.
> Yes, if you knew it was borrowed from an IE language. But you don't. The proper way to state your proposal is to say it's a proposal which might be true if Georgiev's Pelasgian existed and if had ph for PIE p.
> Don't forget that a 'link', when implying borrowing in twoNot exactly. This etymology was specially about psephas/zophos, as I assigned the others words to a different (although remotedly related) etymology.
> languages A and B means either 1. A -> B, 2. B -> A or C -> A, B.
> > Who said "borrowing"? IMHO this is common inheritance. To me, IE and
> > Altaic stem from the same phylum.
> We're talking psephas/knephas/dnophos/gnophos/zophos now, right?
> You didn't say anything other than 'link'. How are we supposed to know what you mean when you couch your proposals in vague terms?I do my best to keep a coherent line on my posts, so I don't have to repeat all the relevant information everywhere. And as I said before, I see Altaic as a close relative of IE.
> > But IMHO GreekGood, you detach the Greek word from its IE relatives in order to fit your own theory.
> > ps- in psÃ©phas, psÃ©phos 'dark' must derive from a
> > *labialized* sibilant *ts^W which would be reflected as Etruscan
> > f- in *favi- (cfr. Latin favissa 'crypt' vel sim) and *kÂ´s- in
> > Indo-Iranian *kÂ´sep- 'night'.
> I can't follow your 'must'. I assume, since you don't state your
> reason, that you think assibilation in a nasalised palatalized
> cluster is impossible. But as I showed you it happened in Polish.
> > Only that this process would hardly explain Greek ps-.
> Actually what I posited was *tÅ- from *tVÅ- "darkness"
> > This root would be ultimately related to NEC *h\nitts^wV 'night, evening'.Wasn't this your question about?
> Related how?
> > Either by way of borrowing (in the case the languages involved
> > aren't genetically related) or common inheritance (otherwise).
> So words are related either by way of borrowing or by common inheritance. Thank you for enlightening me.