IE *k^won and its origin

[Adam Hyllested]

On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Glen Gordon wrote:

> I wish IEists would finally accept that
> some words simply can't be explained within IE alone

Me too. But we should recognize the fact that some words are inexplicable
even within Nostratic.

>   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.

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

Proto-World allright, but don't worry. The science of cross-linguistic
comparison is still at a cradle stage, and nobody can be *sure* about
anything. However, the examples are striking, at least some of them (I
already mentioned the Nostratic ones):
	Archaic Chinese: *khiw at n 'dog'
	Tibetan: khyi 'dog'
	Ket (Yenisey-Ostyak): ku:n~e 'wolverine'
	Basque:	haz-koin 'badger' (lit. 'bear-dog')
	Proto-(North)Caucasian: xHweje 'dog'
	Achomawi (a Hokan language): kua:n 'silver fox'
	North Yana (Hokan): kuwan-na 'lynx'
	Esmeralda (Equatorial): kine 'dog'
	Pila (Papuan): kawun 'dog'
	/'Auni (Khoisan): /ka~i~n 'hyena'
	/Xam (Khoisan): !gwa~i~ 'hyena'
	etc. etc.

Coincidence? Maybe. Certainly not borrowing everywhere.

Adam Hyllested

[ Moderator's response:
  Coincidence?  Almost certainly.  Certainly not demonstrated as "Proto-World"
  by the techniques espoused by Ruhlen.

  Please move further discussion to the Nostratic list.
  --rma ]