From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 6279
Date: 2001-03-02
--- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: tgpedersen@...
> > To: cybalist@...
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:19 PM
> > Subject: [tied] Initial d/t alternation
> >
> >
> > Nom. *deH2-n- > *da:n-
> > Acc. *dH2-en- > *d'an- > *tan-
> > Gen. *dH2-n-
> >
> > where /d/ is plain (non-aspirated, non-glottalic, as Kordtland
> proposed).
> > Or, if an initial *s-/*t- alternation (in Greek) is OK, why isn't
> *d-/*t-?
> > (I know it doesn't quite follow the pattern, due to the number of
> consonants (3 vs. 4). But anyway!)
> > Hope this is "definite" enough. Feel free to take it apart.
> >
> >
> > Torsten
>
> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > There isn't much to take apart yet. In this application of
> Lubotsky's rather controversial hysterodynamic scheme I fail to see
> what *dh2-en- > *d'an- > *tan- is supposed to stand for. The
> alternation t-/s- in Greek reflects the different syllabification
of
> *u/*w (*tu-/*tw- > tu-/s-). But how does *dh2- become *t-, and what
> for? (I mean, what particular facts do you want to explain in this
> way?). Knowing your patriotic preoccupation with Dan-, I suppose
you
> really meant to write *dh2en- > *dHan- > Germanic *dan-. What does
> *deh2-n- mean? What's the fully inflected form of each case, by the
> way, and what IE reflexes do they account for?
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
> It is kind of you to try to correct my mistakes, but I actually
meant
> what I wrote. However, perhaps I should have written /t'/ instead
> of /d'/, using the standard glottalic notation. I wrote /d'/ to
stand
> for "plain non-glottalized non-aspirated stop + glottalization"
> (which then becomes a glottalized stop) starting from /d/ as plain
> non-glottalized non-aspirated, as Kordtland proposed plus a
laryngeal
> glottalizing the stop before it.
>
> You are of course right that I'm trying to get a *d- out of the
> wringer, but I was proposing doing it in a much more ambitious way.
I
> intended to replace the first Germanic sound shift with a version
of
> my own.
>
> But in order to give some background on my thought processes (or
what
> tries to pass as such) I suggest you read
>
>
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/tgpedersen/Shibbolethisation.html
>
> So, given those ideas, here's what I propose:
>
> Roots of the form *D-H- (D any plain stop, H any(?) laryngeal in
PIE)
> will give rise to paradigms with Nom *D-/Acc *T'- (T' being the
> homorganic glottalized stop).
>
> Most IE languages generalize *D-. ProtoGermanic generalizes *T'-
> (while deglottalizing them).
>
> Now we have a phonetic (not just single-word, as the
> original "shibboleth") shibboleth *d-/*t-, between PGmc and
> neighboring languages. Presumably the Skiri and the Bastarni
couldn't
> stand each other, so we might have had Skiri *d- and Bastarni *t-,
> but it might have been the other way around.
>
> Now they (or at least the *T- speakers) generalize this difference
to
> all occurrences of /*D/ in their language. This, to outsiders,
looks
> exactly like /D/->/T/ (Note!: D means [b, d, g], T means [p, t, k]).
> But they miss some. Cf. Lat Nom. major -> French maire, Acc majore-
-
> > French majeur, an example of a nominative survivng a purge of
Latin
> nominatives in the Romance languages.
>
> Where does this leave us within PIE? Well:
>
> Names of gods and people from the PIE Nom. *da:n-
>
> Names of places (rivers!) from the PIE Acc. *tan-
>
> BTW Danish <Tannis bugt>, the bay west of the Skagen peninsula.
> My "NuDansk Ordbog" says it probably contains -næs, 'naze,
peninsula'
> but is otherwise obscure.
>
> It also has "danne-, in composites the same as dane-". This could
be
> a mixed form, showing influence of *tann-.
>
> If you find any faults in this, please don't hesitate to correct
them.
>
> Torsten