--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com,
"H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...> wrote:

> The final result as far as I can

see is:

>
> If the words are IE, then there

is a strong case for making Turkic
IE.

> If on the other hand people

insist Turkic is not IE, then the
words are

> not IE.

There is another explanation,
namely that they have a
*discernible* common ancestor, a
descendant of Proto-Nostratic.

> In any case, there is a case for

putting Turkic in the vicinity of
IE in

> ancient
> times. It was, as far as present

knowledge allows, either somewhere
in the

> Mideast (especially Gamkrelidze

and Ivanov are correct) or in the
diamond

> shaped area in the steppes; south

end is Turkmenistan, north is the
Urals,

> the west is Black Sea steppes,

and the east, somewhere in Central
Asia.

> Except for minor change e.g. put

Slavic homeland slightly more to
the

> east, and make Tokharian a recent

accident of some sorts, the diamond
also

> splits the satem and centum

branches.
No, Baltic, Albanian, Dacian and
Thracian are satem languages to its
West.

>
> But again, there has to be

general principles that have to be
applied

> consistently.
>
> There are only two of them:
>
> 1. recurrent sound change
> 2. some words are not borrowable;

e.g. Swadesh 100 list, Yakhontov 35
list

> etc are formalization of this

concept.
Have you looked at the meanings on
the 100 word list? 'Egg' and
'skin' are Norse, 'give' is more
Norse than Old English, 'mountain'
is Romance. I will allow that the
English word for 'person' is 'man'.
Richard.
-End-of-Message--------

>
> If these postulates are not

believed then there is no HL (hist
ling). If

> HL is
> valid and is based on the two

postulates, then the postulates are

> believed then they
> have to applied, and applied

consistently. No tweaking
constantly.

>
>
> richard.wordingham@... wrote:
>
> > It's plausible that Turkic *bir

'one', *barmaq 'finger' and *ber

> > 'give' are related. An analogy

to the relationship of *barmaq and

> > *ber is the English verb 'to

hand'. However, if the route were

> > through the meaning 'hold'

(perhaps originally only by the
fingers),

> > PIE *bHer 'carry' might also be

related.

> >
> > However, even if *per had the

semantic evolution 'one' > 'first'

> 'in
> > front' (any examples for the

second shift?), that does not mean
that

> > *per is not PIE, though it

would argue that the Nostratic form
meant

> > 'one'. Given the variation in
> > the PIE forms for 'one',

perhaps it was a

> > cluster of forms that had just

taken on the meaning.

> >
> > However, I think that the

primary meaning

> > of Semitic *ra?s is 'head', and

that it has no connection with the

> > _cardinal_ 'one'.
> >
> > Incidentally, I haven't heard

anyone on the list argue that
everything

> > derives from IE: on the

contrary, I have heard it seriously
argued

> > that some PIE words and even

's' mobile are (para-)Semitic.

> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > null
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group,

send an email to:

> >

Nostratica-unsubscribe@...
com

> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is

subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service

> >

<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
.

>
>
> --
> M. Hubey
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

> The only difference between

humans and machines is that humans

> can be created by unskilled

labor. Arthur C. Clarke

>
> /\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/

http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hube
y