Re: "Wife" (was: Homosexuality etc.)

Quoting John Cowan <jcowan@...>:

> Pavel Iosad scripsit:
>
> > Is it really *_kwen_? I mean, I'd rather expect *_gwen_ in the
> > traditional reconstruction, based also on Slavic *_z^ena_ rather
> than
> > *_c^ena_, or OIr _ben_ rather than *_cen_ or whatever.
>
> Absolutely:  g_wen it is: OIr ben, ModPers zan.  Gk gyne is from the
> zero-grade
> version.
>
> > See, it's not even OT :-)
>
> Nothing about proto-language reconstruction can be OT, reconstructions
> being by nature conlangs.  (Except, of course, reconstruction
> _advocacy_.
> "PIE rules, PAN drools!"  Etc.)
PAN? Proto-Austronesian or what?

                                                                  Andreas

PS BTW, I recently read a piece which suggested that Indo-European be renamed
Indo-Anatolic, on the grounds that it's basically made up of two branches -
Anatolic and the rest. The reaction this should provoke is that then Anatolic
shouldn't be considered Indo-European at all, and "Indo-Anatolic" should be
the name of a superfamily encompasing IE and Anatolic. What I find myself
wondering, however, is why the "Indo-" bit of IE was chosen for "Indo-
European" - there being rather more European than Indian branches of IE, "Euro-
Anatolic" or similar would seem to be a more logical label, wouldn't it?

Replies