Re: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41911
Date: 2005-11-08

----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:01 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
<liberty@...> wrote:
>
> > Well just to start off, how do you explain the failure
> > of your supposed *kH to produce a palatalized counter-
> > part after the second palatalization?
> >
> > If it was as most nowadays believe, then a laryngeal
> > stood between *k and the following front vowel and
> > so naturally blocked the latter's palatalizing effect.
> > If on the other hand it was a you say, and *kH was
> > a unit phoneme, then we should expected it to have
> > produced a palatalized counterpart to k at the time
> > of the second palatalization.
>
> pPIE *kxi became PIE *k^hV; pPIE *kxa became PIE *khV; pPIE
> *kxu became PIE *khV.

Well putting aside for the moment the fact that nobody
besides yourself posits such changes, they are still
irrelevant to my question, because you suppose them to
antedate PIE, which of course would have them antedate
the second palatalization.

***
Patrick:

This is certainly _not_ irrelevant. It is my position that palatalization
effects occurred at the time when pPIE became PIE; PIE *k^hV became IA *S;
and merged with *S from PIE k^. And I do not appreciate your categorization
of my position as isolated. Should I slink into a corner and hide myself
until I can get my own gang together? Whether you approve or not, there are
many Nostraticists in this world who would have no problem with the sequence
I have outlined.

***

> So far as I can see, there could be no _second_ palatalization

The second palatalization is a well known fact, that
absolutely no Indo-Europeanist would try to deny.

> because, in Old Indian, all *V had become <a>, which could not
> palatalize.

But of course the second palatalization preceded that
change, and is why we have both c. Is this truly the first time
you've heard of it?

***
Patrick:

If you want to discuss this, then stop being so patronizing. If you cannot
stop, I will go back to working on something else of greater benefit.

First, what did this famous second palatalization do - specifically - that
the first palatalization did _not_ do?

As far as I am concerned, your data is seriously skewed.

Look through your own IE dictionary, and you will see that PIE *k becomes
Old Indian <k> and PIE *k^ (including *k^h) becomes Old Indian <S> - not <c>
as you so blithely assert. A quick scan of initials revealed only two
examples where PIE *k appears as Old Indian <c>; and both are not marked as
palatals. Evidently, you must think that Pokorny was simply crazy??? One
example, *(s)kend-, probably reflects PIE *sk -> OI <c>. The other example,
<camara> supposedly from *kem-, even if it is correct, hardly supports your
"c and k" scenario.

***


> Of course, *kh newly brought into contact with *y
> could palatalize.

Where did it do that?

***
Patrick:

One example is *g(y)eu-, BS *Zyauyo:.

***

> I think you mean "if *kH was a unit phoneme, then we should
> have expected it to have produced a palatalized counterpart
> to _*kh_..."

Yes, that's right.

> Also, if <kh> was really /k/ + /x/, palatalization, if it had
> occurred, would easily have produced /k/ + /ç/, which I use
> when I pronounce <cute>.

No, and here again you require me to expound on the
nature of affricates, so don't try to put the blame
for the digression on me again later.

When an affricate phoneme is either fronted or backed
under whatever conditions, the stop component and the
fricative component do so together; they are always
homorganic or they cease to be an affricate. If your
supposed *kx were truly a single phoneme, then after
palatalization nothing other than *t­ç (in which <t>
stands for a palatal stop) could have ever been the
result.

***
Patrick:

Well in Heaven's name are you using <t> to indicate a palatal dorsal stop???

***

Only *k + *x (a sequence of _two_ phonemes)
could after palatalization ever produce anything like
*kç.

***
Patrick:

Dead wrong. I thought you might have understood that the /k/ was also move
forward but since you evidently did not, or cannot, then /k'ç/.

***

So you see it is you who are trying to have your cake
and eat it too, by having affricates act as single
phonemes in one place, but then acting as a sequence
of two in another, completely according to the needs
of your theory at that moment.

***
Patrick:

Wrong again even if you are constitutionally unable to imagine a palatal
position for a voiceless dorsal stop combined with a palatalized dorsal
fricative.

***

> > Now do not try to claim Sanskrit ch as the palatalized
> > counterpart of Sanskrit kh, because ch is a geminate
> > (cch), whether always written as such or not, and came
> > from PIE *sk.
>
> Fine. PIE *k^he becames <S> in Old Indian.

May we see an example of such a correspondence, and
from Indo-European please, not Nostratic?

***
Patrick:

Well, here is an example of where an IEist must peer beyond IE to get a real
idea of what is going on.

Since the responses to PIE *k^h and *k^ were conflated in IA, Pokorny could
not justifiably reconstruct *k^h for PIE since he had only OI <S> from which
to reconstruct. Only *k^ was justified by what he saw. It was different with
PIE *kh; here, OI usually shows <kh>.

Only comparison with languages outside PIE can reveal the presence of *k^h
in PIE, as, for an example, in *ke:y-, 'be fast', which is pre-PIE *kxiy-,
and would have become PIE **k^hey-. In a derivative with an OI equivalent,
*k^e:i-gh-, OI has <Si:ghrá>. Palatalized PIE *k^ became /S/, and the
fricative part, in a palatal position, would have been /ç/ so it is fairly
easy to see that /Sç/ would have been resolved to /S/. A help to seeing
whether the phoneme was *k^ or *k^h lies in the fact that voiceless
affricates regularly lengthened the following vowel by compensation when
abandoning the fricative component.

***

> > For this reason Sanskrit kh cannot have been a unit
> > phoneme before the time of the second palatalization.
>
> No second palatalization.

Well it's simply ridiculous to try to deny the second
palatalization. Do you deny that Satem *kekore resulted
in Sanskrit cakara? If you do not, then what do you
call the stage in which *k before a front vowel fronted
to something eventually resulting in an affricate in
Sanskrit and Iranian?

***
Patrick:

Yes, I certainly do deny that Satem *kekore led to Old Indian <cakara>.

That stage is called PIE. PIE had *k^ and *k^h; they did not simply come
about when satem languages diverged.

It is obvious, or it should be, from the information I provided above, that
initial PIE *k^ did _not_ become Old Indian <c> under normal conditions.

_Do you dispute that?_

Old Indian <c> is normally understood as the affricate /tS/. We have to look
for something which might have affricated the expected /k/ to /tS/; without
the mystery element, we would have had simply *kakara. We might notice
<pari-Skar-> and imagine **skakara perhaps becoming *tSakara.

On the other hand, where we do see Old Indian <c> is as a reflex of PIE
*kW - quite regularly. If we imagine that *kWer- formed a reduplicated
*kWe-kWer, we would only have to suppose that the actual verbal root was
simplified to arrive at *tSakara - without the necessity of some secondary
palatalization.

Remember, PIE *ke and *ko exist alongside *k^e and *k^o - the *e-form of the
Ablaut vowel *e/*o/*Ø does _not_ palatalize a preceding dorsal stop (or
affriacte).


***



> > No, I'm merely saying that the digression on syllable
> > weight and the nature of affricates was not intended
> > as proof, as I thought that I already stated.
>
> Then it is so much empty theory that contributes nothing to the
> resolution of the question.

It's not empty theory, and it contributes to your general
education on the matter of syllable division in PIE, if
not directly to the matter of the voiceless aspirates.

***
Patrick:

Perhaps, with your help, I may hope to some day be actually educated.

<snip>

The second palatalization, which explains how both k
and c in Sanskrit are reflexes of Satem *k, the choice
depending on whether a front vowel originally followed
or not (excluding analogical considerations for the
moment), is one of the most basic facts in all of Indo-
European studies, and I simply refuse to try to explain
it to you in addition to everything else.

***
Patrick:

I have shown above, and you can verify it for yourself from any decent IE
dictionary, that "Sanskrit" <k> and <c> are _NOT_ reflexes of satem *k so
your books cannot help me much - nor you, I am afraid.

***

> If your references had anything worthwhile to contribute,
> you would already have quoted it.

Back to your old tactics, I see. You can spit and kick
all the dirt you want on a piece of gold, but it will
still be gold.

In fact what you're really doing is shaking your fist
at reality for not conforming to your theories, and
shooting me for no more than being the messenger.

***
Patrick:

I cannot spit and kick on gold I cannot see, and gold you refuse to show me.

I am not shaking my fist at anyone or anything. I belong to a number of
discussion groups, and every group has its built-in efficiencies and
deficiencies - just as I admit for myself. I have shown you above that your
"reality" is a figment of your imagination. Now let us see if you can accept
reality?

I certainly have no wish to shoot you or anyone else. I am on this list to
learn and hopefully develop by testing ideas with you and others. This
discussion has had the salubrious affect, for me, of forcing me to look more
closely at this problem; and, for that, I am grateful to you.

Now, your assignment if you care to accept it, is to show me that PIE *k^
results in Old Indian <c>.

***


David