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

----- Original Message -----

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:45 PM

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

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

>   >   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.

***

Patrick writes:

 

If you wan to disagree, fine. But why write "Yes" as if I agree with you when I do not?

 

I do _not_ think *yaH was durative! I think it was stative.

***

 

<snip>

>   >   >   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
>   >
>   >   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:

 

During a flood, the waters approach slowsly and repeatedly. Why you should dispute that simply escapes me.

***

 

<snip>

 

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 animate 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?

***

Patrick writes:

 

Short answer, yes. Animate verbs are actions which humans take; inanimate verbs are actions taken upon non-humans.

 

Very simply! *daHy- in zero grade: *H become *i;  *a becomes Ø; diy- before consonant become di:-, before vowel becomes diy.

***

 

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 writes:

 

And how is this, in turn, realized in IE-derived language?

***
 
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.

<snip>

 

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 wrote:

>   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.

 

***

Patrick writes:

 

This is not material of poor quality.

 

But the only real question here, why use these two examples:

 

 

To show that the variation between *daiH-l- and *del- also existed in Sumerian.

 

 

Patrick

***

 

Jens






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/