Re: quel nostratique £¿

On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:49:53 -0500, "proto-language"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>[MCV]
>> Alors:
>>
>> One of the "typological" abnormalities found in reconstructed PIE
>> phonotactics is the near absence in word-final position of the
>> unmarked stops *-p, *-t, *-k.
>
>[PR]
>While they are statistically underrepresented, there is absolutely no reason to doubt they existed in final positions.
>
>E.g. IE *(s)na:p-, 'swim', corresponds to Egyptian n(j)bj, 'swim'.

I was talking about word-final, not root-final. The root is
*(s)neh2-, in any case. Maybe *-p became *-h2 (*-p > *-f > *-x is not
unthinkable).

>[MCV]
> The only clear example is verbal
>> 3rd.sg. *-(e-)t, but that one may easily be analogical after present
>> tense *-ti.
>
>[PR]
>Quite the contrary. The earliest ending is *-t; -i is a suffix of progression.

I know. I mean: when *-t / *-ti became *-h1 / *-ti by soundlaw, *-t
was restored from the present tense form, as it was in *-ent / *-enti
(lautgesetzlich *-er(h1) / *-enti).

>[MCV]
> (which is
>> not to say that there are no cases of "hardening" of laryngeals,
>> **h1/2/3 > *k: we certainly have to take that possibility into account
>> as well).
>
>[PR]
>I see no examples that would make us take this proposal seriously.

*dheh1- ~ Lat. fac-, Grk. the:k-, for instance.

>[MCV]
>On the basis of Hitt. ins.sg. -et vs. *-eh1 elsewhere
>
>[PR]
>This is a simple confusion between the two sets of conjugational endings.

ins. = instrumental


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...