Re: [tied] FYD (For your disinformation)

On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:21:35 , "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>There simply is no "universal case suffix" to fane speak of and your
>insistance of it without further explanation insults the attention span of
>the reader.

I think the examples given (Hittite, Germanic and Slavic) speak for
themselves.

>Despite your learned understanding of the elements of *eg^o:, you seem
>unaware that this is a classic IE verb formation meaning in effect "I am
>here" (*e-g^(h)e- is functioning as a thematic verb meaning "to be here"). I
>have never seen the origin of Latin /negare/ layed out explicitly but it
>looks to me similar to this *e-g^(h)e- formation (< *ne-g^(h)e- "to not be"
>? or at least derived from an emphatic *ne-g^(h)e existing elsewhere).

There is no evidence for a thematic verb *eg^(h)e- "to be here".
Latin <nega:re> is not thematic, but an a:-deverbative of *ne-g^(h),
'emphatic no'. Germanic (*ik), Baltic (es^), Armenian (es) and
Tocharian (ñäs' ~ ñäs. / ñuk) show no evidence of a "verbal" (or any
other kind of) ending after the element *(h1)eg^(h), while even in
Slavic (*azU) and Indo-Iranian (*az^ham), the *-om element is clearly
distinct from the 1st p. sg. present ending (you don't get "I" from "I
was here", now). The Anatolian forms (*amu(k)) rather seem to pint to
a possessive element ("my here-ness") than to a verbal one.

>Do note the exact same semantics for the first person pronoun in EskAleut
>languages which attest that this sort of thing goes on elsewhere: Inuktitut
>uva-nga, Aleut ti-ng.

The element -nga (< *-m-ka) is a possessive ("my") in EA as well.

>Your mention of a first person **e

I don't think it's a first person element (although I leave open the
possibility). All I'm claiming is that it's a "pronominal element".

>is simply unconceivable since its
>_attested_ usage in IE is either as a locative as in Anatolian languages
>("here/there")

What exactly are you referring to?

>or as a past tense prefix whose temporal usage must certainly
>be related to the former locative meaning. It is surely related to the
>_third_ person stem *ei-. Your views on the origins of *eg^o: therefore are
>unentertainable fantasy. You are not alone however since our famed
>Nostraticist Bomhard slices *eg^o: in similarly oblivious fashion.
>
>Here is another example of your unthorough deduction and self-contradiction,
>if I may be so free with the serrated edge of my blood-stained honesty:
>
> The oblique form *me, by analogy with 2nd sg. *twe, must
> go back to earlier **mwe [SL #1: mw > m]. The ending -we
> itself can go back to accusative *-mé2 ~ *-mwé."
>
>Why _MUST_ *me derive from **mwe at all? As usual, you fail to elaborate on
>your assumptions, hoping perhaps to pull the wool over the eyes of some
>unsuspecting, sheepish readers. As if an unproved *me<**mwe was hard enough
>to swallow, you further assume that **-we is an ending without giving good
>reasons to your slice-and-dice surgery. (Does that mean that *mw- is NOT a
>single phoneme afterall??) If this isn't a clear cut example of
>"multiplication of hypotheses", I don't know what is.

If we have *mé, *twé and *swé (du. *nh3wé, *uh3wé, pl. *nsmé, *usmé),
then it's only logical to suppose that *mé comes from *mwé. By the
way, *mw are two phonemes (from earlier *mVw), not to be confused with
*m^w, which is a single phoneme.

>Here's another example of self-contradiction that you have refused to solve
>to this day:
>
> IE **usweks, *sweks < *sWesWek^s
> IE *yus, **us < *sWesW-
>
>What you're obviously saying is, "*sW can become anything it wants - *y, *s
>AND *u/w at the very same time without any way of predicting!".

What I'm saying is that there was a soundlaw *swesw > *usw.

[snip]

>... And these are just some of the problems facing your views. Other
>unresolved dilemmas might include the big problem of IE palatalization and a
>uvular solution mentioned by Piotr (also ignored)

Since the proposal for a "uvular solution" was mine, the only reason
to "ignore" it is that it's not particularly relevant to the
morphological issues discussed in this paper. I *will* be discussing
this in my planned article on (Pre-)PIE phonology.

>and the rebellious
>position your views take in relation to the standard Nostratic theories
>(ignored, yet again).

The subject of the article is the internal reconstruction of PIE.
Nostratic is only marginally relevant, and if the conclusions reached
by this internal reconstruction go against the "standard" Nostratic
theories, then tant pis.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...