Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50207
Date: 2007-10-02

----- Original Message -----
From: stlatos
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:11 AM
Subject: [Courrier ind├ęsirable] Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

> ==========
> A.F
> H2 is the same as H1 ?
> Strange !?
> I don't believe this.
> ============ ========

They're not the same: H1 = xY and H2 = x



I don't believe this.

H1 is H = pharyngal unvoiced.

I already gave the reasons to think one of H2 values : h2.7 is G voiced velar spirant. Kiluhepa = k_r_g_p


Basque hel bite, hal feed, nourish

PIE H1ed to eat

Chinese Hod-an > Hodzan > tsHan : BeiJing : can1 to eat. 

c is to be read as a strongly aspirated affricate [tsx].


Latin u:nion "onion"

Arabic Hasan "onion"

Chinese Hats-ong > tsHong : BeiJing cong1 "onion"

Hungarian hagyma < loanword from Turcic *hadzh-ma < Hats-


There are plenty of other words to support that H1 = [H] pharyngal unvoiced.

No reason to think H1 ever was a compound x-y

in any language.
> ===========
> > A.F :
> >
> > 1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant ?
> > The identification of H2 as unvoiced is falsifiable with absolute
> certainty.
> In my earlier descriptions; I've said x() > G() / V_V and GY > y /
> GW > v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have below makes it
> likely Hittite had x in most positions; if it was G somewhere there's
> no way of showing which is original,
> and I'm not interested in trying.
> ============ =
> A.F :
> "not interesting in trying".
> I have my own convictions, but I am not AFRAID of looking at other
people's data and hypotheses.

I didn't say I was afraid. I don't feel there's much point in
trying to figure out where h = x and h = G in a dead language in
regards to determining whether the sound was originally voiced or
voiceless in the proto-language.

It makes no difference to any rules, and I already said I believe
x>G in some positions in PIE anyway.

> Why would this -s- not be added to every sort of stem? There are so
> many different changes in each IE language I know it's not obvious at
> first sight, but the ev. is certain even if complicated.
> ============ =====
> A.F :
> Which instances do you have where -s- is not added ?
> this -s- in Greek seems to be pervading many items.

Well, ending in -ma: magma, omma, sperma, okhe:ma, kri:ma, gno:ma,
thema, stoma, thauma (and hundreds of others).

On the other hand, those ending in -sma:

*xakY+ 'sharp'
*xakY-mYn.,x > Myc. aiksma- / Hom. aikhme: 'spearpoints'

*derkY+ 'look (at)'
*dr,kY-mYn., > darkhma / drakhme: / etc.

*dexY+ 'bind'
*dexY-mYn., > Skt da:man-; Greek desmos

*xan-xY-mYn. , > * > * > *ansthma > asthma

*bhanY-x-mYn. , > phasma / phantasma

*bYhendh-x+ 'bind', bYhn,dhnYax+ (present)
*bYh(e)ndh-( nY)x-mYn. , > pe(i)sma / pasma 'cable, rope'

A palatalized kY or xY (H1) > ks. or s.; probably x > s. only after
it's palatalized by a preceding CY, though there's not much evidence
either way.

The preceding C or V also makes a difference; akY > aiks but rkY >
arks; anY-x > an(t)s but unY-x > una; exY > es but ixY > i: (the pal.
i preserves pal. xY). The major dif. is that a "prefers" not to touch
a pal. C, so the feature Y is moved or changed when possible.

> A.F
> I don't think this is irregular : all morphemes involved are good
> bh_H2 + nt + s + m
> The order is a bit unusual. You might expect -nt- to be last.
> As far as I am concerned, I don't think this unusual order is a
"huge" problem.

Do you mean you think *-nt- '(3pl)' is added to form a noun? Or is
this some other affix?


Present Participle -n-t- !?


> > 3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :
> > You dodge the question.
> I have no idea what ev. would convince you; since m? > m there's
> nothing within PIE showing it clearly.
> ============ ======
> A.F
> You wrote "m? and m fused long before PIE"
> This contains more than one statement :
> 1. m? and m can be distinguished. (ok with me)
> 2 . they were fused in PIE. (I think this is false)
> 3. A language cognate to PIE has a different treatment. (I think
it is true)
> 4. This different treatment can be showed to be "much" (= "long"=
earlier than the split of PIE with its closest cognate languagues. (I
think it is very difficult to prove this)
> If you wrote this "responsably" , (I am confident you know what you
do and say)
> you must have data to substantiate or hint that these statements
make sense.

You already gave some ev. for what you think was m?; I said it was
Nm instead. How can I prove which it was? This ties into many
different changes, such as the origin of the KW series in PIE, the
order of separation between IE, Uralic, and Afro-Asiatic, whether a
correspondence of m-w occurred from a change in PIE or later IE
languages, etc.

Not only am I unlikely to convince you, it would take a lot of time
and effort which would involve discussion and theorizing about non-IE
languages that aren't usually tolerated on this list.



You are a strange man.

You write your evidence in a way that makes it unreadable.

You say something (a whole bag of statements), then you refuse to provide evidence for it.

Now, you make this statement claiming "you are unlikely to convince me" (a strange mix between an insult to me and admission of failure on your side !?),   and that you don't have the right to defend your point of view. (I don't believe this is prohibited)

All this is a screen of smoke and sissy-sassy.

This forum is not about playing poker. You have cards or you don't.


The most important ev. I think there is, which I already gave, is
that Nm is more likely to denasalize to w than m? or any other nasal.