PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer Vidal" <mcv@...>
To: <nostratic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] 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@...
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> nostratic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>