Re: [tied] Italo-Celtic dialect base words?
- It's "* gYH" > "D" that has to be more substantiated
2013/2/28, stlatos <sean@...>:
> --- In email@example.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>> This time You seem to postulate more substrates and borrowings than DGK
> Why do you chose to be such an annoying fool? The borrowed word is
> already attested; I didn't need to postulate anything.
>> 2013/2/27, stlatos <sean@...>:
>> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >> From a robotic point of view, I fail to understand PIE "* gYH" > Latin
>> >> /#f-/; do You mean falco would be "Sabinian" as e.g. fase:na, fedus
>> >> 'haedus', fircus, or Faliscan as foied 'hodie:', or Praenestinian like
>> >> Foratia, or "ancient" like faedus folus fostis fostia fariolus
>> >> fordeum?
>> > It's a borrowed word, so D > T first, then T > f in Latin. An
>> > intermediate borrowing through another Italic language could also work.
- --- In email@example.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:
>not mistaken, Petr suggested that Starostin's f should be replaced by
> A similar case would be IE *penkWe- '5' ~ NEC *fimk?wV 'fist'. If I'm
X\W or XW.
> > What are the attested words on which this NEC reconstruction is
> See here:
>correspondences for this lexeme are regular. That does not exclude
> > Very interesting. The phoneme *f is relatively rare, and the
borrowing from an IE source after the breakup of Proto-NEC.
>only appears in a *derivated form* found in Germanic, Slavic and Baltic
> I strongly disagree. The NEC word means 'fist', a meaning which in IE
(the latter with initial k-), while the bare lexeme shifted to '5' at an
early date, probably in the Neolithic as other numerals. So in my
opinion this would be another case where a word from a language ancestor
to IE is preserved in NEC.
>The cases of IE 'bear' and Germanic 'horse' would also fall in this
Unlike Starostin and Bengtson, I don't think all the proto-NEC lexicon
is from Vasco-Caucasian (aka Sino-Caucasian), as apparently there's a
significant portion whose origin is Eurasiatic (aka Nostratic). Also
Yeniseian seems to be in a similar (or even worse) position, being a
geographical outlayer. As a rule of thumb, I consider a root to be VC if
it's attested in at least two of the following families: NEC, Burushaski