Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
>
> Patrick:
> In addition, every one of the other nine Old Indian derivations of

this

> *kel-
> have <k> (<kalká). Nine *o- or zero-grades?
>
> Richard:
> Look to Iranian for the e-grades: "npers. c^arma, kurd. c^erme

`weis|' (:

> schweiz. helm)"
>
> Patrick:
> But in this case, I am convinced that Pokorny's 4. *kel- really

contains

> two unrelated roots: *kel-, 'reddish' (parallel to 4. *ker-); and

**k^el-,

> 'grayish' (parallel to 6. k^er-). The MPers form *c^arma, 'mold',

could as

> easily relate to *k^er- as to **kel- (better **k^el-).
> ***
>
> Richard:
> No. PIE k^ Iranian s (at least, Avestan _sat&m_, Modern Persian _sad_
> '100').
>
> Patrick:
> Well, let me then suggest *c^arma from *sk^er-mo-.

Have you any evidence whatsoever for this development? What little I
can find suggests the development is simply PIE *sk^ > Iranain *s,
e.g. Pokorny root #1714 (pp917-8) *sk^a:i > Sanskrit _chá:ya:_
'shadow,...', Avestan _a-saya-_, Modern Persian _sa:ya_ 'shadow' and
Root #1718 (p919) *sk^ed > Sanskrit _chadati_, , cha:dáyati 'cover',
Avestan sa:dayanti:- 'ein Kleidungsstück' (skyth. Hose?)
--------

> Patrick:
> I know this will not be satisfactory for you but I am beginning to

suspect

> that cópati may be derived from a root of the form *kWéupeti or

*kwéupeti.

>
> Richard:
> **kwéupeti would have yielded *kvópati. Deriving _cópati_ from

*kWéupeti and

> kopáyati from *koupéyeti strains credulity.
>
> Patrick:
> I have omitted ^ again. I meant *k^Wéupeti (or *k^wéupeti).

*k^W is not in the normally reconstructed PIE inventory. *k^wéupeti
would have yielded **çvó:pati.
-----------

> Patrick:
>
> What makes this so infernally problematical is that we can never

really be

> sure about a satem reflex of *k^ vs. *sk^.
>
> I would suggest códati as a possible example of *sk^ = Old Indian

<c>; and I

> would emend (s)keud- to *(s)k^(h)eu-d- (from *k^(h)e with

association to

> 'fast'); yes, I am aware that by the conjecture I made above, I should
> predict *chódati.
>
> Of course, we also have skundate. This is obviously zero-grade

*sk^undetoi.

> I would have to emend my proposed *sk^ to <c> to be excepted when

followed

> by <u>.

That sounds like an attempt at proof by authority. It's not obvious
to me, given Baltic forms in sku-.
------------

> Patrick:
>
> I feel as if I am arguing with one hand tied behind my back because

I must

> reconstruct PIE forms with *e and *o for satem when I do not believe

that

> satem had them, except as resolutions of diphthongs.

Are you seriously denying them for Balto-Slavonic?

> How would it be if we put the shoe on the other foot?
>
> I will propose my 'rules', and you show me why, in your opinion,

they do not

> work?

Well, go ahead and launch your 'Refutation of the Law of Palatals'.
It may get stomped on by another moderator as flogging a dead horse -
you claims will certainly be met with incredulity.

Richard.