Re: [tied] Italo-Celtic dialect base words?
- --- In email@example.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:
>To clarify some things, I'm sure 'fist' wasn't borrowed, but native; but IE had mkW anyway.
> That would likely mean orig. m (as shown by m, > w, > u in puxDa-) not n ; the presence of m in most high # (or, as it could be analyzed, otherwise unclear NC in '5', m/n in '9') would make it likely part of the IE plural (with met. sometimes, like in nasal present verbs).
> I already did that for f (and others) years ago. The important thing for this question if f- in '5'.That is, the rec. DOES show f-, but if I'm right '5' actually req. XYaf- (with op. XY > sY > s^ or > hY > ?Y > ? > 0), but 'fist' could have XYaf- or f-, and I know they're from the same C- and ety.
> I rec. something like:
> * qW'XWwimkW'xWwiXYa > * fimk'wi?a
> which doesn't help in answering exactly what f was (f / F / pF / pXW ??) since XW and others could change opt., with many options in clusters.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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