Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-03-15 19:10, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > To make clear the situation for anybody here:
> > ==============================================
> > 1. Both Piotr and Miguel's abandonned (implicitly) 2 days ago Mrs.
> > Olsen's theory (as it was presented by Mrs. Olsen) => after both

said

> > for years 'how impressed they are about this theory' => you can

find

> > their old assertation on this forum too
> >
> > 2. But none of them wrote this explicitly here...as usual...
>
> I can't speak for Miguel, but as for me, I haven't changed my mind

about

> Olsen's theory. I still like it.

You like it without to thing how many issues were inside it ...
This is more attraction than science...(and I avoid to show again
other causes that can trigger this)

> > 3. Then : they have tried to improve this theory (in fact only
> > Miguel) with a new version of it => trying to eliminate the cases
> > that didn't fit with the rule by adding different other rules:
> > - vocalisation & non-vocalisation of laryngeals (that was at Olsen
> > too: and I was waiting for them to arrive there also...)
> > - stress position (Miguel's supposition)
>
> Improving and fine-tuning earlier models is precisely what science

is

> mostly about. What Miguel has suggested is an additional structural
> constraint on Olsen's rule.

The theory started 'to be improved' ONLY after my postings...till
then you and Miguel 'were happy with it' as it WAS.
This show at least 'how much' you have think around it BEFORE my
postings

> > 4. Next I showed them that:
> > ph2te'r and dHug2te'r , accented on the last syllables, are in
> > contradiction with Miguel supposition
>
> ... as you (mis)understood it.

I don't misunderstood it: I refuse to trust that a supposed (non-
existing) pre-aspiration could have been different based on a kind of
vocalized x or based on a on-vocalized one.

WHEN
1. the vocalisation of laryngeal was done with a prop. vowel =>
otherwise why we have vowels everywhere as later result of this
vocalisation?

2. the single position where this prop. vowel can be inserted in
the specify contexts was BEFORE the laryngeal /p&x-/ Becuase px&- has
an impossibel syllabification

3. The prop. vowel account also for Latin 'four' (and for
Albanian ;four' too (see Eric Hamp) kWtr > kWVtr- so this was a
largely used instrument in PIE


=> so don't continue to tell stories here about vocalisations of
the 'boshiman' languages, 'retard' etc...

> > 6. Against this I showe them that in:
> > -> in PIE dialectal times a vocalized laryngeal /h2/ has induced
> > an aspiration in dHugh2ter (g>gH)
>
> You have shown nothing of the kind. The aspiration is

not "dialectal

> PIE" but strictly Indo-Iranian. If you claim otherwise, the burden

of

> the proof is on you.

My argument is/was the following :
=> I have tried to take some of the Oldest Indo-Iranian Rules
to see if AT LEAST ONE OF THEM Preceeded this aspiration or not => I
found that no one can preceed this aspiration

If nothing specific preceed it to put this as a Dialectal PIE level
is OK.
I think that the ball is on your court now...

Not link with this:
BUT you can see LIVE that a Vocalized laryngeal COULD TRIGERRED
the ASPIRATION (=>and also LIVE that this is not applicable for h2-t)

> > -> and that even without this I cannot see any difference
> > between the vocalized h2 in p&x-ter or dHhu-g&s-ter and the non-
> > vocalized h2 of max-ter regarding ' a supposed metathesis' x-t>t-x
> > because this vocalisation was donme by adding a prop. vowel (in

these

> > 2 contexts BEFORE the laryngeal)
>
> Your failure to see the difference is your own problem. Even if you
> swear on the Bible that the only possible realisation of vocalised

*h2

> is [&x], it's just your personal prejudice.

You can talk about 'failures' ONLY after you will propose a valid
syllabification for dHugh2ter and ph2ter

Since seems that you are not able to propose something else
coherent against /p&x-ter/ and /dHu-g&x-ter/

=> nobody can see based on what you are talking about here 'failures'

> > 7. Here hey both started to talk about all the languages in these
> > world other than PIE
>
> How do you know what PIE sounded like? How do you now that *&2 was

not

> an actual syllabic fricative or, say, a vowel with a non-modal
> phonation? For your information: there are IE languages with

glottalised

> and pharyngealised vowels too.
>
> > and Piotr placed the aspiration of dHugh2ster 'very late'
>
> You mean *dHugh2ter- > *dHughItar- > duhitar-? Did I really say the
> aspiration was "very late"? Where? I said it was Indo-Iranian

(which

> could mean, say, 2000 BC). It's older than Grassmann's Law in
> Indo-Aryan, at any rate.

It's older than any other Indo-Iranian law.
Important to add that it farway preceed the vocalization of
vocalised laryngeal to i

> What other reasonable etymologies have you got for unaspirated vs.
> aspirated stops in the instrumental suffix, for example?

Post the examples here => I asked for this several times


Marius