Miguel:
>Please don't post in HTML.
Very sorry. This is Hotmail's fault. I tried posting through Netscape as I
normally do but something went buggy with it (I couldn't press the submit
button to send it!) and I copy/paste to the MSIE browser. However, when I
use MSIE, the compose-mail interface is corrupted with a different
MSWord-style Javascript interface. It's god-awful. No doubt the product of
Microsoft's continuing effort in maintaining its unchecked monopoly. The
MSIE version of Hotmail probably automatically makes "html" emails that I
can't help. Sorry, I try not to use MSIE when I can help it. Say no to
American plutocracy, folks! :P
>>Concerning the supposed plural *no:mn-x, why does the following >>link
>>show the Sanskrit plural of /na:ma(n)/ to be /na:ma:ni/?
>>[...] For all the world, it would appear to me to be a suggestion >>of IE
>>*nom�:n (from an earlier **nom�nx just like *wodr & *wedo:r) >>where
>>Sanskrit /-i/ has been secondarily added.
>
>Pay attention. These are the "vrddhi-collectives" I was discussing
>with Piotr. The pl. of <na:ma> in Vedic is actually <na:ma:ni>,
><na:ma:> or <na:ma>.
I've seen a reconstructed form *no:mn... but then again, I guess one can
also interpret it with short vowel, *nomn, and a derivative of the verb
*nem- plus an inanimate ending *-n/-r. Whatever.
Anyways, I am paying attention - Not sure if you are. please follow this
line of reasoning: If *nomn is pluralized via vrddhi, there is no need in
adding *-x (ie: Sanskrit /-i/) to it, is there? That would be redundant
double pluralisation! Clearly then, you are admitting that Sanskrit attaches
/-i/ where there originally was no such IE suffix. Thus, you contradict your
own assertion that Sanskrit /-i/ always attests IE *-x! Sanskrit /na:ma:ni/
< *na(:)ma:n! You've just hung yourself on that point, my friend.
Now, even if there are two seperate plural forms in IE for *n�mn (*nomn-x
and *nemo:n ?), surely you must accept that the vrddhi-collective, whose
reasons for the irregular vowel alternations are not immediately obvious in
Late IE, is an _earlier_ form than the immediately understood process of
suffixing *-x to the singular stem, yes? I have already mentioned that the
vrddhi-collective is itself derived from an affixed Mid IE collective marker
*-xe (later IE *-x) and that all the irregularities are satisfactorily
explainable in terms of a regular application of the Mid IE penultimate
accent. This must have occured at a time BEFORE loss of final vowels
(*xst�re > *xst�r) but AFTER the change of *-n > *-r (Mid IE *w�t:n > *w�t:r
"water"). Therefore, the beginnings of the vrddhi-collective date to
approximately 5500 to 5000 BCE and all is good.
So, Late Mid IE *w�t:r (*wodr) is given a plural *wet:�r-xe (*wedorx >
*wedo:r) by regular penultimate accentuation (and regular *a/*e ablaut).
Similarly a Mid IE *n�mn (*n�mn) should have *nem�n-xe (? IE *nem�:n) by the
same regular processes.
Hence my protest in your assertion of IE *nomn-x which I suspect is only
"optically" attested in Latin /nomina/ and Sanskrit /na:ma:ni/. These are
pseudo-cognates that don't happen to follow regular sound correspondances
with each other because they represent two different late-derived forms
(normal *nomn + *-x versus vrddhied *nemo:n + *-x).
>There were two ways of forming collectives in PIE, adding *-h2, or
>lengthening of the suffix vowel. In Ved. <na:ma:> < *Hno(:)mo:n we
>have lengthening, in Lat. nomina we have *-h2. In Skt. <na:ma:ni> <
>*Hno(:)mo:onh2, we have both.
Right, but what is/are the original IE form(s), Miguel? This is what I'm
trying to get at with you. Obviously you now feel that Sanskrit /na:ma:ni/
is not a secure proof at all for IE *nomn-x like you were pretending
earlier! You're now admitting that Latin and Sanskrit do not derive from a
_single_ IE form with attested *-x! Yet you want to sell Sanskrit /-i/ as
direct proof of the existence of *-x after IE consonant when clearly some
instances of /-i/ are later derivations, like in this example! Huh?? You're
not making sense.
>>Miguel stated: You told me, but you failed thus far to give any >>examples
>>or any precise rules; So what's your view on the >>poim�:n/d�imo:n thing?
>>I've just given you a long list of precise >>rules, Miguel.
>
>About precisely how unstressed *e gives *o? I don't think so.
Unstressed _MID-CENTRAL SCHWA_ (written as *e) backs to *o and fronts to *e
when stressed. It starts in a _central_ position and works its way in both
directions (front and back). Not mid-front *e to *o! Remember, I write schwa
as *e in MidIE (MidIE has no front *e). I do this in order to avoid writing
*@ throughout which would make for a messy orthography and difficult for
expressing the accent when needed.
This vowel change is nothing strange or complex, Miguel. Apparently,
stressed schwas like to peripheralize. The backing of an unstressed schwa to
*o was probably a complementary reflex to balance out the fronting and to
avoid an otherwise lop-sided vowel system.
What exactly are you confused about still? You aren't expressing your doubts
clearly.
>>The poim�:n/d�imo:n thing? Greek "pastor" and "demon"? Or are we >>talking
>>about IndoEuropean itself? Please, let's only deal with >>IndoEuropean and
>>not random items in any IE language. What's the IE >>relevance to
>>poim�:n/d�imo:n?
>
>I'd suggest you think about it.
About what, Miguel?? Speak, man! Why do you suggest I think about it so
strongly? Please answer this time: What's the IE relevance? You've already
woven a supposed *nomn-x plural into the topic and we've seen that your
arguement has gone nowhere. Why should I consider this?
>>I have provided some of these main preIE rules like "MidIE >>penultimate
>>accent"
>
>So how does that explain protero-dynamic vs. hystero-dymanic vs.
>static declensions?
Simple. A protero-dynamic (PD) stem would be *xewi "bird" versus its
irregular-looking genitive *x(e)weis. In MidIE, things are more obvious
since it is *x�wi/*xew�i-se. The Mid IE genitive ending is *-se and its
suffixation automatically causes the change in accent since the location of
the second-to-final syllable is now changed.
The only thing that needs to be further explained is why there is no
thematic *-e- before the genitive ending (eg: **xewi-�-se) as we find for
other stems like *w�t:n/*wet:n-�-se. Again, very simple. The noun *xewi- is
a vowel-final stem and therefore does not require the thematic *-e- to
seperate a consonant-final stem from a consonant-initial
postposition-derived case ending like genitive *-se. PD stems appear to all
be anciently vowel-final (either *-i or *-u) which contradicts the later
treatment of IE *i and *u as syllabic consonants. Due to this later
treatment of *i and *u, new formations like *xewi-os were created to
regularize a very irregular genitive *xweis.
The penultimate accent similarily explains the behaviour of HD stems just as
well. One need only add the pre-existing final vowels to regularize the
accent to penultimate.
>*g^ was most certainly not caused by *e. I, and many others with me,
>consider it to be a separate PIE phoneme.
Who exactly? Your buddies at the bar? Patrick Ryan, perhaps? Bomhard is a
fairly level-headed Nostraticist and his opinion bluntly contradicts yours.
He states on page 54 of "Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis" that
"Also during this stage of development [a late Phonemic Pitch Stage of IE] -
or perhaps even earlier - the velars developed palatalized allophones before
front vowels and *y."
This is a surprisingly uncontraversial, majority view for a Nostraticist,
btw.
Miguel, are you aware of Sanskrit evidence of *e/*o ablaut via the presence
or absence of velar satemisation?? Do you purposely ignore this fact in
order to save your pet-theory from sure annihilation? I'd respect Piotr's
comments on this. What sayest thou on palatal velars, Piotr?
>>3) There is no order to the development of **a:
>>which is free to become either a short OR
>>long vowel without solid explanation.
>
>I have given the explanation: stress.
>[...]
>What I have claimed is that in certain circumstances (e.g. after *y-
>as in *ye:kwrt, *maybe*, as in the case of re:g^, before *g^), **a:
>develops into *e: instead of *o.
Stress makes long vowels SHORT??! Maybe you need an intro course on
phonology. Lazy and unconvincing. Neither the presence/absence of
palatalisation nor stress explains the inconsistent vocalic length. A
stressed *a: does not become *o (cf. **wa:dr > *wodr) without an ingenious
reason. Your conclusions are without foundation and immediately dismissable
so far.
>That in any case. E.g. Slavic c^asU < *ke:s-.
You forgot the palatal diacritic. I'm sure you mean *k^e:s-.
About seeing my website:
>Actually. I haven't.
You should. This way you'd get accustomed to my own theories so that you
don't have to waste time asking the simple questions and get straight to
attacking any inconsistencies in my theory.
>I'm going to quit now. I'm tired of cleaning up stuff like this:
>
> ><P> > &nb>sp;
>[...]
Damn Microsoft! Damn them to hell! :) I promise - No more MSIE.
- gLeN
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com