Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Bear

Expand Messages
  • Tavi
    ... but ... bled by some other change in this case. However, the 2011 correction by ... In the last line he wrote CRC instead of CrC . Perhaps a Freudian
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:
      > > > Matasovic┬┤:
      > > > Another, less probable explanation would involve positing
      > > > a special rule *h2rC > *arC before C[r]C > CriC
      > > That's right. In fact, CRC > CaRC (where R stands for a resonant)
      > > CLCstop > CLiCstop (where L stands for a liquid). Also notice
      > > Matasovic┬┤ made a typo (quoted verbatim by Brian).
      > What's the typo? As I read the quote, the general rule is CrC > CriC,
      bled by some other change in this case. However, the 2011 correction by
      Matsovic' reads:
      In the last line he wrote "CRC" instead of "CrC". Perhaps a Freudian

      Although in the whole I regard Matasovic's as a good work, there's still
      plenty of room for improvement. Leaving aside the cases of faulty "PIE"
      reconstructions like this one (I don't blame him for adhering to the
      standard model), there's a number of points I'm critical of:
      - use of /f/ instead of /F/ "phi" in Proto-Celtic reconstructions.
      - listing of pre-verb compounds as separate entries.
      - lumping of Celtic words with a loose semantic connection but
      phonetically similar under the same lemma (homonymy). There's also a
      milder instance of this at the Proto-Celtic level.
      - cases where Continental Celtic (Gaulish) differs so much from Insular
      Celtic, making impossible the reconstruction of a single protoform.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.