Re: Ligurian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> > If you allow me a little joke, I could think you've got a political agenda
> > like the people who promotes PIE as a kind of new esperanto:
> > http://dnghu.org/
>
> I know them, but I'd deeply revise their phonological and lexical
> choices. Anyway, their assumption is correct at least like Zamenhof's one.
> PIE has, over esperanto, the advantage of an enormous amount of
> parasynonyms and of the non-arbitraryness in the implementation of lexicon
> (every hereditary lexical item can be regularly back-projected - it doesn't
> matter whether it has ever really existed or it's an illusion de la
> reconstruction - and independently recognized and understood by an
> unlimited number of users)
>

Don't forget this PIE-speranto (as well as your own "PIE") are actually *conlangs*, not real languages.

> > The labiodental result from the series III labial corresponds to Villar's
> > Italoid aka Coromines' Soroptaptic aka DGK's Illyro-Lusitanian.
>
> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
> These are the observations I like! A table of concordance between
> theories and reconstructions
>

However, I disagree with the traditional reconstruction of series III as "voiced aspirated", which only exist in Indic. To me they were plain voiced *b,*d,*g, which is their outcome in most IE languages. However, in Greek and Italic they shifted to voiceless aspirated *pH,*tH,*kH which later became voiceless fricatives. As this shift also happened in Etruscan, we can explain it as a result of language contact.

> what's "std"?
>

It's a short for STandarD.