Re: Proper methodology (was: RE: [tied] Re: Mother of all IE langua

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 28331
Date: 2003-12-11

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:14:01 +0000, Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>Miguel:
>>Of course it can. See H. Craig Melchert "Anatolian Historical Phonology",
>>p. 58, on Sievers-Lindeman in Anatolian, I quote:
>>
>>*swé:s "you"(pl.) > *suwé:s > Hitt. sume:s.
>
>Okay, I know something is just wrong. Either Miguel isn't explaining this
>properly or something is invented. If Melchert did say this

Yes he says this. He is trying to defend his idea of Sievers-Lindeman in
Proto-Anatolian (-CCwV-/#CwV- > (-)CuwV- > (-)CumV) against Eichner's
alternative idea that this happens only if a laryngeal is involved
((-)CHwV- > (-)CuwV). He gives three examples where "no laryngeal was ever
present" (sume:s < *swe:s, ardume:ni < *h2red-weni, wastumar <
*h2womst-wor). He admits that Eichner's solution is still feasible,
because the last two forms could be analogical after roots with a final
laryngeal, and because "I do not regard [the derivation of the second
plural pronoun] as assured".

>I just thought of
>a reason why I might be confused. Since I know damn well that *yu:s
>is the _real_ IE 2pp

It's the more common one, just like *wéy is more common than *més.

In the 1pl., we have *wey- in 5 branches (Skt. vay-ám, Av. vae:m, Goth.
weis, TochB was [wey(e)s with the vocalism of nos], Hitt. we:s), *mes in 2
or 3 branches (Arm. mek`, Lith. mes, Slavic my [?]), oblique forms in 4
branches (Grk. he:meîs < *nsme-, OIr. ní < *sni: < *(n)sme, Lat no:s and
Alb. ne < *no:s).

In the 2pl., we have *(y)u(:)s in 7 branches (Skt. yu:-(y)-ám, Av. yu:s^,
Lith. jû:s, Slav. vy (?), Goth, ju:s, TochB yas [vocalism of *wos], Arm.
duk` [d- from sg. du, but obl. je-], *swey- in 2 or 3 (Hitt. sume:s, Celtic
*swi:, and according to EIEC, Alb. u ~ ju < *(u)swes, cf. Alb. u "oneself"
< *swe), and oblique forms in 2 (Grk. humeîs, Lat. vo:s).

Note the greater tendency in the 1pl. to use oblique forms (*wey is the old
oblique of *mes, and 4 branches already use the new obliques *nsme-/*nos as
nominatives), as opposed to a greater use of nominative *(y)us in the 2pl.
and less cases of old obliques (*swey-) or new obliques (*usme, *wos) used
as nominatives.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...