--- In nostratic@..., "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
wrote:

> --- In nostratic@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- In nostratic@..., "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...>
> > wrote:
> > > It would be nice to hook up Austronesian and Nostratic,
>
> > For the record, what I'm suggesting at my site is not that the
> roots
> > mentioned be cognates of Proto-World including Austronesian,
> > AfroAsiatic and IE, but that they are loan words from some or
> several
> > Austronesian languages (or w.r.t. the pig words even New Guinea
> > languages?) into AfroAsiatic and (thence?) into IE.
>
> What were you suggesting for the Austronesian affixes Si- and -n?
> Interpretation of affixed and unaffixed pairs of loans as

inflexions

> in Semitic and IE respectively?
>
> Richard.

Re Si-
The Semitic s- prefix might logically have one status of these two
1) productive
2) purely lexical
If those that know Semitic (and I don't) claim 1) it might have two
reasons:
a) The variation s-/nothing in the borrowed roots was extended to
native Semitic roots
b) The researchers are overinterpreting the data of subsystem that is
actually a system of Austronesian loanwords (apparently it's
unnoticeable in Hebrew).

Similarly (mutatis mutandis) of IE.

Torsten