Re: The monumental stupidity of PIE theorists further illustrated

On Jun 25, 11:54 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The alleged "law of palatals" was applied to some Sanskrit preterite
tense words

cakara ("theory" demands kakara) - "he/she did" and jagama ("theory"
demands gagama) "he/she went" and lo and behold that made it a sister
language to Latin and Greek.

But this is a simple illustration of an "irregularity" in Sanskrit for
euphony - the second "s" in the word "Sanskrit" itself is present only
for euphony - "Sam" + "Krita" or "samyak" + "krita" two possible
derivations of the word do not call for the "s" in the middle.

Here is a little quiz for all the non-Indian ng. members who go about
making pronouncements about Sanskrit:

Meaning verb  inflected form

write      likh   likhita (written)
fall         pat    patita (fallen)
ask       yaac    yaacita (what is asked)
praise   vand    vandita (one who is praised)
do        kri       krita (what is done)

....................................................

lots of "regular" examples

...................................................

cook   pac

what is sanskrit for "cooked"?

More proof that the "law of the palatals" is crock:

dragging Sanskrit into the PIE fold is based on a fundamental fallacy
- that it was subject to the same unconscious, usualy reductive sound
changes like just about every other known language.

But Sanskrit is unique in the possession of the laws of internal
sandhi - i.e., conscious sound change - sound changes driven by
euphony that may go either way - strong to weak or weak to strong.
Western linguists have made a huge deal of the softening of kakAra and
gaGAma = but we have at least one example of something traditional
hist ling ling says practically never happens - a palatal changing to
a velar

vanij (merchant) is vanik in the singular and vanijah in the plural.
.

Relevant Pages