I stated, in critique of Pat's etymologies, the following:

> You have Dravidian *ken.- and yet Bomhard lists *kan-.
> There is incongruence here that needs to be explained.

I have found explanation for the incongruence.

I have found *ken.- amongst Starostin's Dravidian roots.
Unfortunately I am no judge of their validity no more than
Piotr, but I'm rather unimpressed with his flimsy Altaic
etymologies. His views on a close relationship between NWC and
NEC are so unlikely to me the more I examine the idea. Starostin
reconstructs voiced stops for Dravidian (!) which seems just a
tinge anti-establishment. Perhaps there is a Dravidianologist
amongst us that can aid us with these roots. Question: Is
Bomhard's *kan- "to bear (children)" correct or is Starostin's
*ken.- "to have sexual intercourse" correct? Are they both
false/correct? Anyone know?

I forgot all about that laryngeal after IE *g^enH1-. Thanx
for the reminder, Piotr.

- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com