Re: Etymology of English 'black'

From: "Emily Zilch" <emily0@...>

> { 20040606,0915 | Danny Wier }
>
> "Arabic _lahab_ 'flame' might be related by a stretch of the
> imagination; there would've had to have been metathesis, maybe *blh >
> lhb. I doubt it seriously. Maybe _balq_ 'mica' might be a better
> candidate, since mica is a shiny and smooth mineral."
>
> And because [bh] is a UNITARY phoneme.
>
> Sorry, don't mean to sound harsh, but there is no evidence (AFAIK) of
> any metathesis happening involving PIE "aspirates" treating their
> aspiration as separate bits.
True, but what I was referring to is a belief among Nostraticists is that
Indo-European *bh is related to Afro-Asiatic *b. Though Nostratic may or may
not be a valid theory in the 'real world', it is in my conworld, and Tech is
a direct descendant of this.

Since the form of Indo-European I'm using is modified according to the
'glottalic theory', the belief that PIE didn't have triads of p/b/bh, but
p(h)/p'/b((h) (making Grimm's Law a conservatism and not an innovation),
there will be some words in Tech that will be similar to Germanic words with
similar meanings! For example, 'tying together, marriage' is _ban^d_ (the ^
should be a caron/hac^ek); its passive, _b@n^d_ (@ = inverted e, that is,
'schwa'), means 'house, home, family, community', close to German _Bund_.

Reply