The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

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

> > > The root *mad- (thus LIV) of Skt. madati 'intoxicate', Lat.
> > > madeo 'be wet' forms Skt. pf. mamá:da. The root *bhag- (thus

LIV)

> > of
> > > Skt. bhájati, Gk. aor. éphagon forms Skt. pf. babhá:ga. Both

forms

> > > have Skt. /-a:-/ from *-o-.
> > >
> > > The root *kan- 'sing' of Lat. cano, OIr. canaid 'sing' forms

Toch.B

> > > keme 'melody' from *konmo-s.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but the question was: examples of ablaut a/o/zero _within the
> > same language_ (or better _within a paradigm of a single root in

one

> > language_); all examples of the same root having (reconstructed
> > PIE) /a/ in one language and (reconstructed PIE /o/) in another
> > language, could be explained as the /a/-occurrence being borrowed
> > from a language which didn't develop the original pre-PIE /a/

to /o/,

> > and the /o/-occurrence being "normal" inheritance within the

language

> > in question.
> > *kan- is one of the roots that Celtic, Italic, Germanic

mysteriosly

> > share, as Kuhn points out; now suppose the /a/ in those three IE
> > dialects is due to the fact that it was borrowed from an IE
> > substrate, eg. 'Old European', which is so full of /a/'s?
>

> The evidence of comparative linguistics is, if anything, stronger

when it

> operates between languages than within a single branch.

If you assume no loans, yes.

>How could a form
> a *kan- with reflex of o-vocalism in Tocharian be due to the "fact"

that

> the root is a borrowing from Old European?

It is a loan from Old European into _Western_ IE, not into PIE.

If its presence in Tocharian

> is enough to secure its PIE age, why would a presumed *ken- (which

must be

> what you imagine) take a-vocalism on Old European soil if most

other roots

> do not do any such thing?

Because the *ken- root did not survive in the later languages in
those areas, but it was borrowed from the 'Old European' substrate
language, which had not developed ä/a > e/o like PIE had. In other
words 'Old European' is not a descendant, but a sister to PIE.

So, like this:
pre-PIE: *kän-/*kan-/*kn.-
'Old European': *kan-/*kn.- (merger of /ä/ and /a/
its sister, PIE: *ken-/*kon-/*kn.-

In Western IE the latter root is lost. But that's OK, since they've
borrowed *kan-/kn.- instead from their substrate, Old European!

>And comparably with *mad- and *bhag- whose
> presence in Indo-Iranian should give you cause for some concern.
>

Not at all. All one has to do is assume an 'Old European' that was a
sister language of those that became Indo-Iranian, Tocharian, but
whic had no direct descendants (since it was obliterated by a later
IE invasion). The o-vocalism of the supposed *kan- in Tocharian is
then due to its being descended directly from PIE, which did develop
an /o/.

Torsten