Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!sarima
From: sarima@netcom.com (Stanley Friesen)
Subject: Re: original Nostratic word challenge
Message-ID: <sarimaD6FIMv.8uq@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <peterm-310395090057@jester.geology.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 22:32:55 GMT
Lines: 27
Sender: sarima@netcom10.netcom.com

In article <peterm-310395090057@jester.geology.uiuc.edu>,
Peter Michalove <peterm@hercules.geology.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>1. Proto-Indo-European *wed-.  This is based on forms in many of the
>branches of I-E, such as Sanskrit udan; Greek ydor, Hittite waatar; ...
>This etymology is widely accepted in I-E linguistics, although other
>notational systems are sometimes used.

Well, more or less.

Pokorny lists it as *awed-, which implies an initial X (a-coloring
laryngeal); that is the proper PIE reconstruction is more like:
*xwed-
>
>I would stress again that these etymologies are uncontroversial within the
>study of the individual language families they represent.  What is
>controversial is the claim that these families are genetically related,
>reflecting an original form **wete.

Or, correcting for the laryngeal: **hwete.


-- 
NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.attgis.com

May the peace of God be with you.

