A sincere pardon is owed to all listmembers, who may better delete what
follows.
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> The Greek reflexes of p are far less "flexible" than you suggest. The
> correspondences you cite are examples of regular assimilation (*p > m),
> of palatalisation (*p > pt), or of equally predictable changes such as
> Grassmann's Law in Greek (*ph > p, if that's what you mean). I'm not
> sure what you understand by "p > k,... p > t". If you refer to the
> existence of pairs like tettares : pisures, the changes underlying this
> correpondence are *kW > p and *kW > t (divergent treatment of
> labiovelars in different dialects, even in the same context). I know
> perfectly well that Greek developments are sometimes pretty
> complicated, but no historical linguist who knows his job would assert
> that Greek is a language in which anything goes, or even that it isn't
> "susceptible to strict rules".
Dear Piotr,
It seems that we have a problem of communication here.
a. Does my "Greek is not -imho- a language susceptible to strict rules"
equals to your "Greek is a language in which anything goes"?
b. Are the mentioned cases of p changes not enough for my terming it as
"flexible"? How many would that make it 'flexible'? Would 10 suffice?
20? 30?
(en passant, my p > k would be the Ion. one, e.g. okOs-okoios-kosos
instead of opOs-opoios-posos, etc. and my p > t would be the Dor. and
Aeol. ones, e.g. pempe-spadion instead of pente-stadion, but WHO REALLY
cares?)
> Sporadic irregularities don't change the fact that Classical Greek b
> NORMALLY comes from PIE *gW (it might also go back to *b inasmuch as
> the latter is reconstructible). We need not discuss modern Greek
> dialects here, as boskO and related words occured in this form already
> in Classical Greek. When you propose an irregular change, a plausible
> reason should be offered for it -- something better than just saying
> that Greek is a capricious language with messy dialectal developments.
> If you practise etymology without the recommended formal rigour -- as
> an art in which consonants matter little and vowels less than little
> (who said that? Voltaire?) -- all you gain is heaps of spurious matches
> ("wild coincidences"?) which the recommended formal rigour like theos :
> deus or thEr : German Tier, English deer.
c. Did I ever discuss from what b NORMALLY comes? Was there any
connection with the issue at hand?
d. Did I ever mentioned modern Greek? Was there any connection with the
issue at hand?
e. When "*I*!!! propose a irregular change"? When I've shown that such
cases of p > b are NOT unthinkable, as you thought they were, should I
also have to "offer a plausible reason"? Well, what about a
Karkatsulian'
principle? Or, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that YOU can offer a
plausible reason for ANY deviation/exception that one can find in Gr.
language? Pleeeease!!!
f. Did I ever say "consonants matter little and vowels less than
little"? Why should you wonder "who said that"? Piotr did! Or, was it
too much of a shock to you that vowels matter less than consonants?
Should I have whispered it first?
g. Do I practice etymology "with the recommended formal rigour"?
Depends. YOUR recommended formal rigour? Whose recommended formal
rigour? I practice it fine with mine. I also practice it fine with
Reason. That surely is enough for me.
i. If what I say "aren't much use to anybody" is fine too with me. In
fact, I do prefer it better than to put words into other people's mouth.
But perhaps your "theos : deus or thEr : German Tier, English deer"
as what? my argument?! shows the level of your "formal rigour".
> As for bosk- : *paxsk-, the apparent similarity between them is to a
> large extent due to the final -sk-, which doesn't belong to the root
> but is a common IE suffix forming iterative or intensive present stems
> (as in baskO < *gWm-ske- = Skt gacchati). After detaching the shared
> suffix our equation shrinks to Gk bo- = PIE *pax-. Neither the
> consonant nor the vowel is quite what it should be. IMHO "an extremely
> wild coincidence" is an extremely hyperbolic term for such a vague
> biphonemic "correspondence".
At last, our problem is sight! Allow me now to recount its adventure
(and fear not, I do not tend to twist things according to my taste):
Step 1 (the prelude to the drama).
Somehow, somewhere, you've mentioned that "Gk b cannot correspond to PIE
*p".
Step 2 (the much regretted step).
I 've answered:
"P changes to b, in Gr. (cf. bateO instead of pateO). A PIE *p?sc- could
rather well be transformed to Gr. boskO". Nothing more, nothing less.
And that was a polite way-out, since you do know -as everybody else
entitled to know- what connects pascere and boskO.
Step 3 (the critical point).
Here, you could have graciously and magnanimously, even Christian-like,
respond: "Well, I do not agree with the conclusion, but I'll give it
-as a linguist- 1 (ONE) chance in 5,000,000." Even a physicist would
have ceded that much, and I'm not referring to a quantum physicist.
After all, nobody expects from your Greek to be impeccable and the
exceptions of your Stiff Rule could well have slipped from you, at that
time.
But NO! That wasn't formally rigorous enough! The trick was easy and at
hand. To defend poor 'boskO''s indication, I'd had to respond with a
treatise, accounting for ALL Gr. vowels changes and sufferings since
the beginning of time!
Alas! your opinion is not enough motivation for such a challenge.
Now, was 'boskO' a Holy Cow that I've encountered in all my ignorance?
Was there an Absolute -and Secret- Dogma hidden beneath its innocent
facade? Was there a forbidden meaning, deep covered under its
simplicity? An UFO's conspiracy perhaps? Who knows? Who cares?
Step 4 (a comforting, though in vain once more, effort).
I've called upon the numerous complexities and deviations of Gr., as an
easy exit. I've pointed that nobody is obliged to agree with anyone, and
that we can live happily ever after with our differences of opinions.
You see, I hate academic cock-fighting more than my sins, and that
wasn't -for God's shake!- the decipherment of Minoan Hieroglyphic, it
was just a f...rivolous 'boskO' after all!
To lamentable result.
Step 5 (the sad outcome)
That's almost known by now. Obviously, I should have answered -in the
spirit of the best scholar traditions- : Sorry, Sir, despite your
expertise, you failed to prove your qualification for my standards.
In fact, anyone who e.g. can suppose a "dOsei artou" is definitely
below my normal standards.
But this isn't my line.
Still, I can't manage to persuade myself to tolerate this lack of
respect, this lack of good will, this lack of listening what the other
is articulating.
You see, dear Piotr, if I want to communicate with my library, I go
straight to my library. And if I try to communicate, I expect a
sincere effort for communication, focused on reasoning, with an -at
least- warmer eagerness than that of my dead books.
Thus, you'll have to forgive me if that's the Last of me. You
understand, I've just spotted a book on my shelves promising to
consider as open the possibility of being fallible. It sounds more
interesting. -
Farewell and Prosper,
Christos