Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:

>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> This I simply do not understand: 'writing' vs. 'written (out)'.
> ***

I fail to see the cue. Do you mean that 'I am writing' is durative,
while 'it is written' is stative? I'll agree to that, but did I say
it was different?

> > As for *yaH-, I would regard the stative as meaning 'gone

away' not

> 'be in progress'; that would be, by my lights, durative, hence

present

> or imperfect. The perfect would convey 'gone to and arrived at'.
> ***

Yes, *yaH- is basically a durative verb.

>
> I agree, and I called it durative accordingly.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> 'be in progress' I call durative, too. 'be gone', I call

stative.

Fine.

> > > With *tekW-, 'run', I suspect we may have a Sumerian

cognate:

> > tuh2, 'help'; If this represents pre-Nostratic *tox-, it
> > means 'approach a large number of times'; I suppose *-xa is a
> > formant for large indefinite animate plurals. This might

produce a

> > durative.
> > http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ProtoLanguage-

Monosyllables.htm<http://www.geocities.com/proto-
language/ProtoLanguage-
Monosyllables.htm<http://www.geocities.com/proto-
language/ProtoLanguage-
Monosyllables.htm<http://www.geocities.com/proto-
language/ProtoLanguage-Monosyllables.htm>>

> >
> >
> > One use of *tekW- which is assuredly of PIE age is about

running

> > water. I fail to see the obvious connection
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick wrote:
> >
> > As the water-level rises, the water approaches repeatedly.
> > ***
>
>
> So all of a sudden running water is said not to run, but to

approach (the

> speaker) a large number of times, in PIE? For heaven's sake, it
> characteristically runs past the observer, not onto him. You are
> desperately clutching at straws. If that is what needs to be

assumed

> before any of your extraneous arguments can begin to be valid,

you can't

> expect anybody to follow you.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I do not think any native speaker of English would characterize

the gradual encroachment of water in a flood or rising tide
as "running".

Then he shouldn't use this verb. The verb *tekW- is used about
streams and rivers describing what water does in them; it is also
used of animals and humans expressing what they do when they run on
their feet.

> I think you may have mispoken here.
> ***

What should I have said differently?

> No, both just infix *-ne-/-n- (Baltic only -n-, since it is the

middle

> voice). The -u- of dabhnóti is that of the adjective seen in

Hitt. tepu-.

>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> I have a big mouth but I do not know if I can swallow that one.
> ***

There is also Gk. thrasús 'daring' : Ved. dhrs.n.óti 'dares'. There
are some others too. The analysis is quite commonly accepted, I'd
say.

> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> We would all like to "prove" something. But in this field as in

those as "scientific" as physics, we never "prove" anything. We show
a degree of probability that entitles us to act as if we had. That
is all.

I do not see you adding anything that really makes your dissection
of the IE roots into elements you feel you know from Egyptian or
Sumerian probable by any standard I take seriously.

> Are you introducing a difference between *daHy- and *daHy-,

closely

> related, indeed identical but for the shape of their hyphens??

Can't you

> just accept that di:ná- has no known etymology and therefore is

not of any

> use in a serious debate of this kind?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> No, I cannot accept that. Whenever I have despaired of finding a

cognate, very frequently I search the last place I would normally
look for one, and find it.

>
> I have not communicated properly.
>
> I do not derive it from either 'bound' or 'parted' but rather

from 'liquid/liquify/disintegrate', *daH-, the inanimate _usage_ of
animate _ *daH-, 'part'.

> ***

Are there animale and inanimate *verbs* in your grammar of IE? How
could *daH- create a form that ends up being Sanskrit di:ná-? What
was it in PIE? Especially, what is the segment /-i:-/ based on?

JER:

> No, "non-vocalized laryngeal" means H. I am saying that a

sequence of

> laryngeal + /y/ is realized [Hi]. In the PIE form of this the

laryngeal is

> preserved as a consonant.
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> And how is [Hi] realized in IE?
> ***

As [hi], [xi] or [GWi] (GW being a voiced labiovelar fricative),
depending on which laryngeal it is.

>
> >
> > > ***
> > > Patrick wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, claim away. I claim it is a retention of a *dey-

that has

> > gone out of use.
> >
> > Then why can it vocalize the /y/?
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick wrote:
> >
> > Why would it need to? *diáti vs. dyáti? No practical

difference.

> > ***
>
>
> So now it is immaterial that the form *is* diáti? Your whole

outcry

> started with the allegedly alarming news that dyáti had no [i]

as a reflex

> of the laryngeal. You were then told that the laryngeal should

not yield

> [i] here, but the presence of a cluster before the /y/ should

make it

> syllabic, and it actually has. You now have to face up to the

situation

> that the problem you set out to solve does not exist.
>
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> Sometimes I begin to think that you just like to rattle my cage.
>
> You have misreported the question here, perhaps unintentionally.
>
> When I claimed that dyáti was best analyzed as a zero-grade form

of *dey-, you responded that *deHy- would produce dyáti also. When I
objected that the resulting zero-grade *6 from the *H should show up
as *i, producing namely **di-y-áti, you informed me that the
sequence *6y was always resolved to *y before a vowel, so that
the 'laryngeal' disappeared completely.

>
> Now, it seems you are claiming that the *H is vocalized ("make

it syllabic") so that, retaining reflexes for both *H (*i) and *y,
we have /diyati/, the /iy/ proved by the scansion of a _different
form_ but written dyáti, i.e. [i] for /iy/.

>
> I do not believe it for a minute.
> ***

What is "it"? You're the one who's misrepresenting things here. The
fact is that the verb you were talking about, Vedic dyáti 'binds',
was potentially scanned [diyáti] as the attestation of the 2sg
imperfect <adyas> [adiyas] shows. Thereby it proves to contain *two*
consonants before the /y/, meaning that [diy-] is from */dH1y-/,
i.e. with the laryngeal present. You started the whole thread by
calling a general alert because the laryngeal was missing; it is not
missing.

>
>
> >
> > But what *is* the actually attested form [adi(y]as] with
> > vocalized /y/?
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick writes:
> >
> > If there were two such closely related root-forms as *dey-

and *deHy-,

> the verb has no obligation to us to be entirely consistent in

their

> employment in various tenses.
> > ***
>
> Other roots do not play such games, why would this type do that?

Can you

> prove the existence of a root-form *dey- that cannot be derived

from the

> fuller form *deHy- by simple sound change?
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> No one can absolutely rule out the disppearance of a 'laryngeal'

since in some positions, *aH -> *a., etc.

>
> And it cannot be completely ruled out here either as a result of

a simple "sound change".

>
> But that is not what we normally see.

It most certianly is - that's my whole point. If this is in any way
aberrant, please tell us how.

>
> You are going back to your conflation of all variants type of an

approach.

No, I am applying the phonetic rules that can be seen to operate
elsewhere in the same language; they make these forms simple
allomorphs, just alternating phenotypes of the same basic material
treated differently by different environments.

> If we assumed that the original form was *deHy-, and, in some

cases, this was simply truncated to *deH-, that is possible but it
would be a completely different argument from what you have been
advancing.

> ***

No, I said so from the outset. These are my old rules, the ones I
published 16 years ago. I have however been giving due consideration
to your suggestions giving them every chance of showing what they
are worth.

JER:

> Why are your IE-Sumerian connections based on words that are not
> established for IE in any serious way? Why not take some of the

many

> securely reconstructed words and combine them with the entire

material of

> the other Nostratic branches and then subject the goodies of

that to an

> external comparison with Sumerian? It seems to me you are acting

like a

> dialectologist who refuses to explain the English speech habits

of the

> next village with other dialects of English but insists on using

Sanskrit

> all the time.
>
>
> ***
> Patrick writes:
>
> What is not serious about *del- and *d6i-ló???

The -l- of Slavic de^lU is located in an added suffix; the root
*delH1- 'cut up' does not match this by any standard.

> I have connected hundreds of Sumerian words with PIE at my

website.

Then you shouldn't need to fall back on material of such poor
quality as this.

Jens