Re: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"] and the origin of IE thematic

From: Grzegorz Jagodzinski
Message: 40575
Date: 2005-09-24

glen gordon wrote:
> Grzegorz:
>> I also reject the idea that they were pharyngeal
>> because I think that, from them, only g was
>> pharyngeal [...]
> Based on what per se?

Based on glottalic consonants in Sindhi, the glottalic articulation of the
vowel before mediae in Latvian, Winter's rule in Balto-Slavic, Lachmann's
rule in Latin, Bartholomae's rule in IIr, some Gmc facts (vestjysk stød,
preglottalization in English before a tautosyllabic voiceless plosive,
preaspiration in West Norse).

>> So, I can accept existing of the phoneme /a/ in PIE
>> (even if I have doubts).
> You word this as though you have a logical choice in
> the matter. You simply MUST accept it because as
> I've said and as was supplied in one of my links,
> there is not one vowel system attested that lacks
> an "a"-sound (id est: that lacks a low vowel of any
> variety).

No, I needn't, for two reasons. I have already enumerated them but I will
repeat if you want.

1) The Late Common Slavic vowel system had no a's. The British English
system has not either (neither front /æ/, central /^/ nor back /O/ are low
vowels, and we are not talking about long vowels like /a:/). The same about
the Hungarian system. And your links are simply wrong. It must be another
mythical language universal, not so universal as it should be.

2) IE /e/ may have been /æ/ and IE /o/ may have been /A./ - so both may have
been low vowels. Such an assumption is not needed by me for anything, but if
you insist so much...

>>>> *g^heH2n-s- ~ *g^hH2n-s- for goose.
>>> If the word is onomatopoeic,
>> No, it is a part of the Nostratic heritage or a
>> Wanderwort.
> That's an empty assertion considering the fact that
> the details of Nostratic are far less secure than IE.

Please do not term "onomatopoeic" Indo-European. I cannot see any IE details
in the statement that this word is (as if) onomatopoeic.

> Piotr's view is more logically economical by far
> because it doesn't require assuming blindly that the
> word is ten thousand years old or more based on
> empty look-alikes.
> = gLeN

Why do you think that we have empty look-alikes here?

And abstaining from any external comparisons is not more logically
economical but unnecessarily restricting mind rather. If a word is six
thousand years old, why couldn't it be 10 thousand years old?

Grzegorz J.

Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail