Dear Torsten and Nostraticists:

----- Original Message -----
From: <tgpedersen@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 7:13 AM
Subject: [nostratic] Re: A reworked Nostratic


> One thing that strikes me is the abundance of roots differing by
> d/l/r/n, as in [...]


I am going to include these comments perhaps only as a curiosity since "proving" them is probably virtually impossible.

Many CVC roots, in my opinion, can be analyzed as a root-element + root-modification.

For example, *k(h)e/o- provides the root meaning of 'cut' (among several others).

Combining any root-element with

+l seems to impart an intransitive nuance to the resulting root;

+r seems to impart a transitive nunace to it;

+d seems to give it a singulative nunace; and

+n seems to nominalize it.

Since these are all common modifications of any given semantic idea, it is natural, if root-elements (CV-) can be postulated, that these finals would form recurring patterns.

On the other hand, these roots (CVC-) have undergone such drastic semantic reshaping and manipulation of meaning with root extensions, that it is probably not possible to make a provable argument for this analysis.


PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: and PROTO-RELIGION: "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)