IE *k^won and its origin

[Glen Gordon]

GLEN GORDON:
  Until we find a *p- before that word in some attested language,
  it's all but one of many possibilities (Probably the unlikeliest
  possibility too). [...] Illych-Svitychs earlier Nostratic
  reconstruction [...] is also based on Uralic forms [...] I'd be
  interested to know if others have found these forms in Uralic
  [...] and if so, could they simply be borrowed from IE?

ADAM HYLLESTED:
  Even if they were, this wouldn't explain the existence of similar
  forms in other language families closer to IE than AA. [...]
  Old Turkish <qanc^iq> 'bitch', Mongol <qani> 'a wild masterless
  dog', Proto-Tungus <*xina> 'dog', Korean <ka> 'dog' (< kani), Gilyak
  <qan> ~ <kan> 'dog' and Sirenik <qanaya> 'wolf' (read the y as a
  gamma).

Ah, good. Altaic and Siberian languages. That's certainly closer than
AA - my heart's a bit more at ease now. Regardless of whether we can
firmly conclude inheiritance or borrowing though, *k'won- is
undoubtedly very ancient and I wish IEists would finally accept that
some words simply can't be explained within IE alone so that really
bad theories like **pk'won- might be quickly nipped in the bud as they
should be.

ADAM HYLLESTED:
  In "On the Origin of Languages", Stanford Univ. Press 1994,
  J.D.Bengtson and M.Ruhlen boldly add probable cognates from a wide
  range of other language families, even khoisan.

Er, that worries me. So how are we sure for example that Khoisan terms
are neither coincidence nor borrowed from AA and sons? Khoisan isn't
usually considered to be Nostratic nor Dene-Caucasian. What are they
trying to reconstruct with these cognates? Not Proto-World I hope.

--------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at hotmail.com

[ Moderator's comment:
  That is precisely what they are trying to reconstruct.
  --rma ]