Mark wrote:
Changes p>t>k and p>b>m could have taken place and could have taken place
long time ago. This seems like a Nostratic matter.
...............H E R M E S
...............M E R C U R Y
H=M and M=C (k). I don't know what else to say.

I wrote it badly. I stand by M=K.

As I explained in previous posts, this pair of words is not evidence for
that claim.

M.C. Hubey:
> Strange things happen and they are ignored usually. For example, there are
> two words in Hittite, both meaning essentially, "cooked food" or "cooked
> hapalzil, and parsSur (S=sh). The first is especially "cooked
> dish" I think. If hap=kap (container, cup), then we have *hap-palzil thus
we have
> palzil=parSur, thus
> ..........................P A L Z I L
> ..........................P A R S U R
> L=R, and Z=S and again L=R. If
> these liquids were all around in existence, why
> are they getting confused with each other?

The point is that the liquids seem to have been missing across a wide swath
of land
and were introduced or innovated later. I take the former choice.

> BTW, the l-r and sh-z are by no means perfectly regular. Look at
> how both l-z and sh-r occur together. One of these for sure, e.g.
[Hittite] parSur
has gone into
> Turkic as pish (too cook), and via the Altaic Turkic p>...B> 0, giving
rise to
> ash (food), asha (to eat), etc. But since we already have similar words in
IE, e.g.
> English parch (to heat up, dry), essen (to eat), eat (to eat), etc. not
only do we see the same
> kinds of sound changes as here but also the same as I gave before.

What do you mean by 'introduced'? If you mean came in as loan words, then
Hittite hapalzil and parSur can't be Nostratic. Or are you talking about a
more restricted swathe of land?

What is the status of 'ash'? Turkish? Turkic? I presume below that it's

What makes you think English 'parch' can be an inherited word?
(1) If you had a dictionary with any pretensions to give etymologies, you'd
find its origin is unknown. You are thus 'reaching down' with a vengeance.
(2) If you had a good dictionary, you'd find that the best, but rejected
guessses, made it a compound with the Latin prefix per-.
(3) If you could accept that comparative linguists have *some* idea of what
they're talking about, you'd know that inherited English p- ought to imply
PIE *b-, but that any instance of PIE *b- is highly suspect.

So then it must be borrowed. Is that what you are saying?

Either borrowed or 'invented'. English 'parch' first appears in the 14th
century, and cannot be traced back to anything earlier.

Are you just being mischievous in quoting German essen 'eat'? It is a
perfectly regular derivative of PIE *h1ed 'eat'.

No. Why? Persian has "ash"

German essen 'eat' is merely part of the evidence for PIE *h1ed 'eat'.
German 'essen' does not add to the plausibility of PIe *h1ed and Turkish(?)
ash being cogante (other than be evidencing what sort of sound changes are

By Persian 'ash', do you mean Farsi a:sh /AS/ 'stew'? What's its history?
How do we know it isn't a loan from Turkish? Farsi has been subject to some
pretty heavy Turkish influence, and the meaning 'stew' doesn't seem to keep
its words very well.

In fact, I think
Khaladj has hash (instead of ash) adding further evidence that the
bilabial-F/B (which still exists in Japanese) changed to h in Turkic
(already theorized by
Turkologists) and still retained in Khaladj. It is also pretty clear that
kap (cup) etc is originally Turkic or Prototurkic ...

What distinction are you making here?