Re: [tied] PIE Stop System

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...>
wrote:

> Well, okay, perhaps there is a difference, but I do not think it is

very

> big. If 'resound' is discarded as onomatopoetic, and some missing
> ten.asp.-cases are added (Skt. prthuka, Arm. ort' 'calf'; Skt.

s'a:kha:

> 'branch', Arm. c'ax, Sl. soxa; Skt. ratha-, Alb. rreth 'circle'),

the

> balance is not very uneven.

[AK]
I think that Alb. <rreth> (pl. rrathë) 'circle, region' is from an
lengthened o-grade form *ro:g^-, besides others derivates: <i
drejtë> 'right' from d-reg^-to-, <mbroth> 'to prosper, to flourish'
from an lengthened e-grade *mb-re:g^- and <rrjedh> from basic root
*reg^-
I think also that Mr. Peter has right that Alb. zâni/zëri 'sound' is
derived from *g^hwen-

> It has a taste of unequal rights when you make the following

assertion:

>
> > The difference between *g^hw and *gwh is reflected in Sanskrit,

Avestan,

> > Armenian, Albanian, Slavic, and Baltic.
> > But the difference between */p t k/ and */ph th kh/ can be

reflected

> > securely only in Greek and I-I.
>
> Aspirated tenues are found directly in Armenian, and under certain
> conditions also in Italic and Slavic (*kh), and I would say

Albanian (th).

> And "I-I" is not less than "Sanskrit, Avestan"; nor is "Slavic, and
> Baltic" in my opinion more than one branch.
>
> Even if the picture can be honestly made out to be uneven, it

should be

> remembered there will always be something that takes up the place

at the

> end of a scale. Not *all* IE phonemes can be more frequent than

others.

> Does that make them wrong? If we delete them for that reason, do we

not

> make the next ones waiting in line wrong?
>
> And worse: there must be *some* things that occupy the position on

the low

> end of the scale of easiness of detection. Are things necessarily
> non-existent just because they are hard to discover? You accept it

is a

> matter of interpretation, but are you implying that we should stop
> interpreting the data? Are we entering an anti-intellectual contest

to see

> who can accomplish less?
>
> Jens
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, P&G wrote:
>
> > >>voiceless aspirates.
> > > > There are only 4 that are supported by both Greek and Skt,

one of

> > those
> > a
> > > > Lall-word.
> > > > Is this really "ample" evidence, which "demands" the

reconstruction

> > of
> > > > voiceless aspirates?
> > >
> > > Oh yes, that's more than the basis of a phonemic opposition

between

> > /gWh/
> > > and /g^hw/.
> >
> > Alas Jens, when you make this claim, your facts are wrong;  the
> > distinction
> > between *g^hw and *gwh is very well founded.
> > The difference between *g^hw and *gwh is reflected in Sanskrit,

Avestan,

> > Armenian, Albanian, Slavic, and Baltic.
> > But the difference between */p t k/ and */ph th kh/ can be

reflected

> > securely only in Greek and I-I.
> > For *g^hw and *gwh, even though the difference only appears
> > root-initially,
> > we have 3/4 minimal pairs, 3 other words in *g^hw and 8 in *gwh. 

Some of

> > these are very wide spread over the IE languages which can show

the

> > difference.
> > For */p t k/ and */ph th kh/, there are only 3 words where *kh is
> > supported
> > by both Greek and Sanskrit, and 1 for *ph.  One of these is

the "laughing

> > noise".   In all other cases either a laryngeal is known to

follow an

> > original */p t k/, or the evidence is contradictory, difficult to
> > interpret
> > safely, or the aspirate is restricted to a single language.
> >
> > You don't need me to spell out the reflexes for you, but in case

anyone

> > else
> > is following, we would expect to find:
> > gWh     >  Skt h/gh          Av j^   Arm j^/g  Alb gj-  Lith g-

     OCS

> > s^/g
> > g^hw    >  Skt   hv/juhv-  Av zb  Arm j       Alb z-    Lith z^v 

OCS zv

> >
> > If we consider only the minimal pairs, and only the languages

that show

> > the
> > difference, then we get:
> > gwhen "hit"  Skt h / gh-  Av j^  Arm j^/g-  Alb gj- Lith  g- OCS

z^ / g-

> > gwhen "swell"  Skt h-/ gh-   Arm -g-  Lith g  OCS g
> > g^hwen "resound"  Arm j-  Alb z-  Lith z^v  OCS zv-
> >
> > gwher "hot"  Skt h-/gh-  Arm j^-   Lith g-  OCS g-
> > g^hwer "wild animal"  Lith z^v  OCS  zv-
> >
> > g^hwel "become bent" Skt hvarate redupl juhur- & jahvar-  Av zb- 

Lith

> > z^v
> > OCS z-
> > gwhel "want"  OCS z^
> >
> > Since these roots are widely attested across Greek, Latin, Celtic

and

> > Germanic, and since there are other roots showing the same

distinctions,

> > but
> > not as minimal pairs, the evidence from the satem languages can

be taken

> > as
> > establishing that *g^hw and *gwh were indeed different phonemes.
> >
> > But no such certainty can prevail with */p t k/ and *ph th kh/. 

I accept

> > that the degree of certainty we give it is a matter of

interpretation,

> > but
> > the facts are that the claim for the phonemicity for voiceless

aspirates

> > is
> > much less securely based than that for *g^hw and *gWh.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > Click Here!
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

> >