Re: The sound law milking!

On Mar 9, 9:58 pm, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why Pokorny believed that *melg- was the root of the word "milk"? Is
it possible that no one among the biggest "brians" in the world of
lingua science spotted that "milk" couldn't be derived from *melg-?

In recent discussions on this forum the self-appointed "wisdom
sellers" repeated a few times that nothing could be properly done in
the field of historical linguistics without the use of the well
established "sound laws", and it is - to a certain extent - the
correct opinion! ;-)

Therefore, I decided to give them a chance to prove their "supreme"
knowledge and to demonstrate their "scientific", tongue-expert
abilities. Namely, the root of the word "milk" is *bhleug- and not
*melg-; i.e. this IE word has been derived from the primal Bel-Gon
basis. Is there anyone who would be able to explaine all the sound
changes the milk suffered before it was milked out of the fruitful
linguistic udder?

Only Denials is/are not allowed to be posted. :-)

DV

It seems you are not interested to find out what the real science
is :-)

DV
.

Relevant Pages

  • The sound law milking!
    ... In recent discussions on this forum the self-appointed "wisdom ... sellers" repeated a few times that nothing could be properly done in ... the field of historical linguistics without the use of the well ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The sound law milking!
    ... it possible that no one among the biggest "brians" in the world of ... sellers" repeated a few times that nothing could be properly done in ... the field of historical linguistics without the use of the well ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast