On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:48:57 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
<
glengordon01@...> wrote:
>Miguel:
>>[...] /x/ before a front vowel (*wanaxi- ?, cf. PKartv. *wenaq->"grape").
>
>Not sure whether I can buy your analysis of pre-Egyptian given what you have
>already said on pre-IE.
This is the standard Egyptological view. See Loprieno "Ancient
Egyptian", Kammerzell's introduction to Hannig's "Grosses
Handwoerterbuch Aegyptisch-Deutsch" or Schenkel's "Einfuehrung in die
altaegyptische Sprachwissenschaft".
>Your views on pre-IE seem honestly to me to be very
>counterintuitive, using research from other people whose views are
>frightfully amateurish.
Such as? I only mentioned Jens Elemgaard Rasmussen (without holding
him responsible for my theories), who is one of the most original
Indo-Europeanists of our time.
>For instance, your views on the origins of IE laryngeals from earlier stops
>(which I remember you mentioning a couple years earlier on the Nostratic
>List) is not something that many of the prominent Nostraticists have
>concluded. Take note of I-S, Dolgopolsky or Bomhard. Their views are that
>the Nostratic laryngeals begat the IE laryngeals.
That's also my view[*]. Additionally, (*p), *t and *k in the Auslaut
also result in laryngeals, in IE. This explains the curious absence
of any of these stops at the end of the word (except for verbal 3rd.p.
*-t, which is a relatively recent extension, as we can see from the
fact that it *follows* the plural morpheme *-en in the 3rd.pl., and
that it's frequently absent). More specifically, the developments I
posit are:
*-tw > -s [e.g. vb. 2sg.; nom.pl. -es]
*-t > -t (Anatolian) > -h1 (post-Anatolian) [e.g. the instrumental]
*-t^ > -y [e.g. nom.pl. -oi; tréi-es < *t^rát^- < *tiláti-]
*-kw > -h3 [e.g. nom.du -eh3]
*-k > -h2 [e.g. fem. -eh2, -ih2/-iks]
*-k^ > -h1 [e.g. nom.du. -(e)h1]
Can't think of any *p's, except that *pw probably merged with *kw
(except in Germanic[**]) and should have given *-h3 in the Auslaut.
[*] Although differing in detail. For instance, my Nostratic
laryngeal inventory would be something like: *3 (`ayn), *?, *h [the
voiced, glottalized and aspirated variants of the "null" consonant],
plus *G, *x [velar fricatives]. The uvular series *G", *q, *q., while
not strictly belonging to the "laryngeals", gives Semitic *3, *x, *h.
(but IE *gh, *k, *g [as e.g. in Sem. *3as'r- "10", PIE *g^hesr-
"hand", but Luw. isri-]).
[**] Std. example: *ye:kwr(t) "liver" < *l^a:pwnt-, cf. Teryugan
Ostyak <La.p@...> "spleen", as quoted in Dolgopolsky 1998. Cf. also
*kwetwor-es "four" < *pwáta- + wa:r- ~ PAA *?ap.t.u- ~ *p.wat.u-
(Somali <afar> < *?ap.at.-, Beja <fad.ig> < *p.at.VG", AEg. <jfdw> <
*?ap.t.aw, Hausa <fud.u> < *p.wat.u-, Sem. with metathesis *?arba3- <
*?at.p.a3- < *?ap.t.aG"-)
>I don't see what benefit
>there is in going against this straight-forward sound correspondance in
>favor of something that offers more chaotic connections to faraway Egyptian
>grammar.
And I thought you would be pleased to see pPIE pl. *-atu, du. *-aku
reconstructed, when compared to PU pl. *-t, du. *-k[a]...
>But... On another topic, Kartvelian *wenaq- seems to be a clue to the
>ultimate origins of the "wine" word... but what is it saying? What is the
>*-q- at the end supposed to be?
An unvoiced aspirated uvular stop.
>Is it somehow comparable to Etruscan /vinac/ "vineyard"?
Maybe.
>I don't know a huge amount about Basque variability but luckily there's
>a page with a sample of Basque speech in .aiff format (playable with
>RealAudio):
>
> http://www.teleport.com/~napoleon/basque/audiosample.html
>
>The speech is rapid but as I listen carefully, I cannot hear a difference
>between this speaker's pronunciation of "s" and "z" -
You wouldn't: he's from Mutriku, very close to the Bizkaian border.
Bizkaian (and neighbouring Gipuzkoan dialects) does not distinguish
<s> and <z> anymore (both sounding as "Spanish" apical /s/), nor <ts>
and <tz> (both sounding as "French" laminal /ts/).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...