From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 5031
Date: 2000-12-12
----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n
> Miguel:
> >**-n- generally stays as *-n-.
>
> Yes!
>
> >In the Auslaut, **-n > *-r, except when the preceding consonant is
> >*/m/. This explains the PIE -r/-n- heteroclitics (all neuters, so
> >with *-n in the absolute Auslaut in the nom/acc). It also explains
> >the neuters in *-m(e)n, which failed to undergo the shift.
>
> Yes! A person by the name of Hans-Joachim Alscher
> (http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Hall/9766/indoeuro/gender.htm) has
had
> his own page on this sound change for years and I've been restating this
> same rule already.
>
> >Also explained is the 3pl. preterite *-e(:)r, which can be analyzed >as
> >zero ending + plural morpheme *-en- (**-an-), to which additional >3rd.
> >person *-t (or *-s, e.g. in Indo-Iranian) could optionally be >added.
>
> There is no plural morpheme *-en-. There is no support for this in
> Tyrrhenian nor in any closely related language group to IE. More below.
>
> >The symmetrical scheme is:
> >
> >*-mw > *-m *-mw-án > *-mén/*-wén (*-me(s)~*-mos, *-me:(s))
> >*-tw > *-s *-tw-án > *-tén (*-te(s), *-te:(s), etc.)
> >*-0 > *(-t) *-0-án > *-ér(-t) [present *-enti]
>
> No, sigh. You're really fighting this, aren't you? From Steppe to IE, it
> should be:
>
> *-m > *-m *-mi(t) > *-mé, -més
> *-t > *-s *-ti(t) > *-té, *-tés
> *-a/-i > *-t *-ani/*-ini > *-ent
>
> There is no need for labialised phonemes ad nauseum. Why can't you crave
> simplicity? You've completely misunderstood the plurals in *-n. It has
been
> transferred via the 3pp *-ene (note MEDIAL and not final *-n) to the 1pp
and
> 2pp by analogy only (hence *-mene/*-tene > *-men/*-ten), at a late date!
The
> original plurals were either identical with their respective pronouns or
> they were terminated with the plural *-it (hence *-mes < *-mit).
>
> >The obvious exception is the 2pl., where we would expect *-ter (vs.
> >present *-teni). Tocharian B. has -cer (< *-te:r), which may be an
> >isolated remnant of this expected form
>
> Hmm... Doesn't Toch.A. have -ma"s & -c for 1pp & 2pp? This looks awfully
> assymetrical unless maybe something got replaced in the 2pp as opposed to
> the 1pp. In which case, we shouldn't expect TochB -cer to be directly
> reflective of IE. What is the 1pp in TochB? Only one language to cover the
> failings of your theory where **-r doesn't exist? Why not reconstruct a
> MEDIAL *-n- like me? Wouldn't that be simple?
>
> >Other exceptions (i.e. PIE words ending in *-n) are rare: there is >*en
> >"in", which, as a preposition, was never in absolute Auslaut, and >may be
> >short for *en-i (with Loc. *-i) in any case.
>
> The *-n > *-r change only affected _full_ words (nouns/verbs) as opposed
to
> enclitics. Hence final *n in enclitics were treated as "medial" because
they
> were not originally complete except within the context of a phrase. The
> locative doesn't need to be employed here.
>
> >There are some interesting locatives in *-r [< **n?] (such as E.
>"where")
> >as well. Any other PIE *-n's?
>
> Wouldn't the word "when" be a locative? :)
>
> >Palatalized **-n^ can give both *n and *i. This is apparent in a
> >number of lexical items (*nem-, *yem-, *em- "to take" < **n^em-; or
> >maybe *su:nus/*su:yos "son" < **suH-n^- (?)),
>
> Why do you insist on this stupidity? *suxnu- and *suxyo- are two totally
> different forms altogether! Do you ignore the important *-u-/*-o-
difference
> just to aggravate or to be daft?
>
> >but morphology provides another clue in the *-i/*-n- stems (such as
>found
> >in Vedic), e.g. N. pátis, G. pátyur, fem. pátni: or N.A. ásthi, >G.
> >asthnás, where the *i in the nom.sg. might well be derived from >earlier
> >**n^.
>
> Oh come on! Now you're saying that **n^ becomes *-ni- instead of *-nu- or
> *-yo-? If you honestly do not notice the inconsistencies here, you must be
> taking high dosages of something.
>
> >Whether the word for "9" has anything to do with "new" or not, there
> >is the possibility of *neu-i-os < **nawn^-os and/or Arm. nor "new" <
> >*nowor < *nowr. < *na:wn.
>
> There is no **-n^- in Etruscan /nurph/ "nine". The /-ph/ part (perhaps
from
> /pi/ "at, in, through") is similar to /cezp/ "eight" (< *ci-s'e-pi "three
> from (ten)"). Have I mentioned MidIE *neura before (Early Late IE *neur
with
> root *neun- by analogy with heteroclitic declension)? It might correspond,
> albeit irregularily, with the Altaic form too.
>
> - gLeN
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>
>