From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1998 #265 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Friday, September 25 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 265 Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma Re: ane Re: Digamma ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 05:00:00 -0500 From: mcv@wxs.nl Subject: Re: ane Re: Digamma "Donald R. Vance" wrote: >Let me rephrase >my question. Are there any new suggestions for these common culture terms >in the Eastern Med. beyond Cyrus Gordon's concept of a general Eastern >Med civilization (to grossly oversimplify his suggestion)? A reasonable case, despite difficulties, can be made for the numerals, where multiple connections are possible between Proto-Semitic, Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Indo-European forms. Quickly: PS PIE PK 4 *rba3- *arwa (= 8 !) 5 *xams- *xus't (< Akk. *xawist) 6 *sidT- *swek^s *eks^w 7 *sab3- *septm *s^wid 8 *ok^to: *os^txw (= 4 !) 9 *tis3- *cxra 10 *3as'r- *as't [See, for instance, Alexis Manaster-Ramer in Dhumbadji! 2/3, Dec '95] Metal names (e.g. PIE *H1reudh- ~ Sum. urudu) are interesting as well. [on *ert- ~ *?ard.-:] >Is it really such a stretch to see a development from an emphatic voiced >dental to a voiced dental to an aspirated voiced dental to an aspirated >unvoiced dental? Especially between cultures? No. But why not **erd(h)- or **ers- or **erl-? There's no way to tell what it should be, with only one example to go by. Especially when Celto-Germanic *ert- more than likely derives from PIE *er- (cf. the Greek and OHG words), and the *-/t/ therefore is not directly connected with Semitic *-/d./ at all. ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1998 #265 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html