From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52577
Date: 2008-02-10
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-
> > ==============
> > PIE *gw can only be PAA *q
> >
> > Whatever that hatchek root really is.
> > I suppose it should better be read *ts
> > What are the PAA data supporting #516 ?
> >
> > Arnaud
> > ================
> I have written this a couple of times but for your benefit I will again
> provide the link:
> http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3_table.htm
> P.R
> ==============
> It's quite obvious I disagree with your phonetic fairytales.
> I won't benefit from this link.
> Arnaud
> ================
***
Perhaps from any link?
You have no panache.
It is quite obvious no new information is allowed to intrude on your
Weltbild.
***
> > PIE *gwem does not exist.
> > the root is *gw
> > with two extensions : gw_H2 and gw_m.
> > And Meillet does not reject gw_n- for LAtin.
> > A third one.
> >
> > Arnaud
> ==============
>
> That is where you are wrong.
> ============
> I disagree with you.
> I could say the same.
> Arnaud
> ================
***
Why not try proving something with data rather than imagining your ideas
have any reality outside of your own head?
***
> No root in PIE consists of a single consonant; the very shortest are *CV,
> e.g. *me.
> ============
> I disagree.
> there is no *me "root".
> *me and (He)gh(-o) are the same root.
> me stems out of ngga?u-aH1
> where instrumental -aH1 attracted stress
> hence caused a syllabic implosion
> and nggw-eH1 > me(:).
> (He)-gho stems out of ngga?u
> Arnaud
> ===========
***
Wrong again! It is true that some languages use *qo, 'skull/head', for 'I';
others use *na, 'one'; others *mo, '(hu)man'; others *k?e, 'male', and, a
few like PIE use *¿e, 'speak(er)'.
PIE *Heg^- is from *?a-k?e, 'this male'.
Also, there is _no_ instrumental in PIE with -*aH1.
Are you unable to buy the appropriate manuals for these studies?
***
> If you want to write *gW_H2, be my guest but no PIE root has no *V.
> P.R
> ===========
> It's no use writing -e-.
> Only the skeleton of consonants makes sense.
> C_C is the same thing as CeC.
> Try to think half a millimeter above the surface of things.
> Arnaud
> =================
***
I suggest a nanometer scale for you.
*C_C- is not the same thing as *CéC- because
1) it neglects long vowels;
2) it ignores attested vowels in descendant languages;
3) and, with a context like verbal root, it conveys nothing.
Whether you have it so organized in your head or not, (P)IE dictionaries use
the perfect verbal root as the citation form: *CéC.
If you do not like it, talk to Pokorny.
***
> In this case, the PPIE root was *gWa- to which *H (*?) was added,
> lengthening it to *a: and preserving its central quality.
>
> Without lengthening, *gWa- became *gWé- when combined with other formants:
> *gWéw-, *gWéy-.
>
> What is your basis for saying *gWem- does not exist?
> =============
> The root is *gw_
> which can be incremented into : *gw_H2 ; *gw_m ; *gw_n
> Arnaud
> ============
***
You are being characterically obtuse.
If the form was *gw_H2, there would be no vowel for *H2 to 'color'.
***
> Actually, I think it likely that it should be emended to *gWyém-, an
> extension of *gWéy- rather than *gWé-.
> But it exists in Arabic as <Sym> and in Egyptian as <S[j]m>.
> Patrick
> =========
> I not only disagree
> but this time
> I think you are hopelessly *wrong*.
> Arnaud
> ===============
***
Hope is eternal in the human breast.
Patrick
***