Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 22246
Date: 2003-05-25

On Sat, 24 May 2003, fortuna11111 wrote:


> [...]
> Ops, that about the voiced/voiceless was new to me. Now I see.
> Kapiert.

Wirklich, Eva? Then go tell your countrymen. The rule is known to
everybody but never endorsed expressis verbis. Of late it is even being
sidestepped in favour of complete nonsense which would have been disproved
on the spot by the founding fathers of the field. I can't see what's wrong
except its "sender's address". I suggested it in a paper read in 1975 and
in print in 1978 and on later occasions. I guess it is just too much to
accept such a simple solution to a problem that has been discussed as long
as /e/ and /o/ have been known to both exist in PIE; that was exactly 100
years at the time I put forward the rule. To my great surprise it appears
to have been completely accepted by writers on this list, but I don't
suppose it is a requirement for being here.


> (snip)
>
> To save you the pleasure of explaining further, where could I read
> more on that in a digestible form? I don't think I have ever gotten
> so deep into a single... case :-) But I would like to.

Why may I not have my little pleasures? I understand your question to mean
where you can read about IE linguistics. If I'm wrong correct me, and I'll
be more specific next time.

One of the only modern manuals that are not preaching personal and
untenable nonsense is Andrew Sihler: New Comparative Grammar of Greek and
Latin, Oxford UP, 1995. It extensively treats Lat. and Gk. in a pan-IE
context, providing much of the information needed to integrate the other
branches also. Other basic textbooks are: Oswald Szemerenyi: Introduction
to Indo-European Linguistics, Oxford UP 1996 (paperback 1999). Michael
Meier-Bruegger: Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, de Gruyter, Berlin -
New York 2002. The part on laryngeals is fine in the latter, while other
matters are treater more informatively in the former; one needs them both.
Apparently list members prefer R.S.P.Beekes; Comparative Indo-European
Linguistics, An Introduction. Amsterdam/Philedalphia 1995: Benjamins. That
ought to be known if only because it is the one most writers on the list
refer to; it represents in many respects a highly personal digest, in many
points apparently adopting the views of F.H.H.Kortlandt which ought at
least to be seen against the background of traditional teaching (I'm sure
they think the same about me). The last no-nonsense presentations of PIE
were Meillet's Introduction a l'etude comparative des langues
indo-europeennes, 7e ed., Paris 1937 (largely unchanged since 1903),
reprint 1964 University of Alabama, and Karl Brugmann: Kurze vergleichende
Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 1-2. Strassburg 1902-04, reprint
deGruyter, Berlin - New York (one volume) 1970. Meillet and Brugmann can
sometimes still be bought cheap, try www.abe.com and see if they've got
them.
I recommend also the articles of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Indo-European languages; Indo-Iranian languages, Anatolian languages,
Germanic language, etc. And perhaps even more the Encyclopedia of
Indo-European Culture, ed. J.P. Mallory & D.Q.Adams (Chicago & London
1997: Fitzroy Dearborn), where e.g. the article "Proto-Indo-European"
contains a skeleton grammar on a state-of-the-art level.
Many of the things we are discussing on the list, however, have not
entered the world of handbooks (yet, perhaps never will), or have only
entered it in imperfect and partly distorted form. By staying on the list
you can contribute to the brew out of which future scholarship will
perhaps be distilled.

Jens