Miguel, who's hellbent on giving me a run for my money...
> >1. *sem- *same "heap" *same "heap" --
>
>Why "heap"?
Why? Since that coincides with the meaning found in Circassian,
a branch of NWC. I don't see why the development of "heap"
=> "entirety, whole" is a hard one to grasp. Further, I see no
reasonable Steppe cognates and so I favour the NWC loan
hypothesis for this root.
> > *dus- "bad" *t:�u *t:�u *t:�u
>
>What has "1" to do with "bad"? What is this <t:> anyway?
Yes, I knew you'd fight this one. Here's how this works:
*dus- "bad"
< *deu-s- "to be abandoned"
< *deu-s- "to be alone"
< *t:�u "one"
I mentioned this before.
> >3. *treies *kW�l�i�s *kW�l�i *k:W�l
>
>?
I don't like odd developments such as this, but it is the best
explanation I have so far. It would be the result of contamination
with "four" which ends in *-twor- afterall. Assimilation within
systems such as a numeral system is not strange at all and there
are many examples of this sort of thing happening over and over,
in case you're unaware of how number systems evolve. Irregular
developments, as unordered as they are, are to be expected
... to a limit, that is.
>>8. *ok^to:u *kW�tWax� *kW�tWax� (?)
>
>Where does the o- (*h3o-, *h1o-...?) come from? Why not **kWVt -> *kWt as
>in *nokWt- "night"?
For the obvious reason that *k^tw- is a mouthful, especially for
a simple numeral. The initial *? (*H1) is automatic. I've already
explained this numeral in previous posts but here is the development
with FULL explanation for the drowsy. Note the following explanations
are not ad hoc but rather are there to explain the development of
other stems from Mid to Late IE. Examine this carefully:
Early Mid IE *kW�tWa-x� "eight"
Late Mid IE (5500-5000 BCE)
> *k�tWax� - dissimilation of *kW from *tW
and disassociation from
*kWetWares
> *k^tWax - Late Mid IE loss of
unstressed schwa
- *k^ = "nonuvular *k" since velar
was next to *� and not *a
> *k^twax - *tW > *tw
> *ak^twax - prothetic vowel *a- to break up
initial *CCC- pattern
Late IE (5000-4000 BCE)
> *ok^t(w)ox - Late IE vowel shift
- loss of *-w- before *o and
simplification of -CCC- to -CC-
> *ok^to: - *-ox > *-o: (compens.length.)
> *ok^to:u - *-o: > *-o:u (labial closure)
> >9. *neun *n�ur� *n�ur� (?)
>
>-r > -n ???? You gotta be joking.
How is this so strange? It beats *k- > *p- in your etymology of
*penkWe which still lacks full explanation.
Again, this is an irregular change but fully explanable. First,
we must note Etruscan nurph "nine" with /nur-/. This validates
*n�ur�. From there, *n�ur� first became *neur after loss of
unstressed schwa, however, the final *-r was assimilated with
initial *n-, producing *neun. Further *dek^m ends in a nasal as
well and could have supplied further pressure on the numeral's
evolution.
> >20. *wi:k^mtix *k�mt�ix� *kam�s(kam�t-) *kam�t
>
>Where does the *wi: come from?
Whatever. However you want to reconstruct the beginning. It's
not important to the origin of *-k^mtix which, in all,
contains a total of three plural suffixes (*-t-, *-i- and *-x).
The agglutination of suffixes like this is common in the Mid to Late
IE stage. Speaking of which: I have to talk about *-wr with
Piotr in another post...
> >How *penkWe derives from *kem(t)kwe and how that makes much sense
> >semantically is beyond me.
>
>*kemt-/*komt- is "hand". "One, two, three, four, and the hand..."
... Which is ludricrous. I can't believe you're trying to
claim that *penkWe somehow means "And the hand"?? From *kemt-???
It's easier to find God than it is to get from *kemt- to *penkWe.
There's a limit to how much assimilation and analogy can explain
irregular sound changes. Neither excuse works here. You're insane.
> >Why does *r in *treies derive from *l
> >in this instance but not others?
>
>Seems to me you're suggesting the same thing [blah, blah, blah]
Children copy others. You need not copy me if you think that you're
mature enough to know better. Please state a specific sound rule,
not statistics on general sound changes that occur in a group of
languages. Do you have rules? Have you bothered to develop any?
For me, Steppe *r > *r and Steppe *l > *l unless other forces such
as analogy come into play. You need to explain why we have *tl- >
*tr- here... or is this the rule, in which case, can you find
other examples? Justify *tl-. Etc, etc, etc! Start talking, Mig!
>>What is the rule behind this? Why does *u sometimes beget IE *We
>>(*putu-(w)a:r(?)-atu > *kWetwores) and sometimes *e (*du-kam(a)t- > *dekm)
>>and sometimes from *e,
>
>*u > *we. Labialization is later sporadically lost, especially on
>non-velars and in polysyllabic words.
Sporadically? You mean to say "I never bothered to find a rule
behind the random loss of labialisation"... Right. Nice. That'll
convince the linguists...
> >ignoring for the moment the obscene *p>*kW problem? Why do you
> >keep using parentheses and question marks everywhere?
>
>Because this is all speculation. Trying to reconstruct back from PIE
>towards Nostratic, the uncertainties and pitfalls become larger.
So, in other words, because this is all speculation, you feel you
have full license to propose off-the-wall linguistic developments
without justification for your whims. Ridiculous. IE might be
called speculation too, however, many of the people working on it,
thankfully, have a head on their shoulders and understand how
language works. We don't find parentheses all over the place in
IE. They are used sparingly, with reservation, unless your name
starts with either "G" or "I"...
>Questionmarks and parentheses are necessary even when reconstructing
>at much shallower time-depths.
They are excuses to avoid solid rules and strict methodology.
>Grimm had rules and that's why people like him.
>
>I prefer Verner.
Thereby exposing your fetish for "exceptions" rather than founding
rules... Thanks for sharing. Your words are priceless, they really
are.
- love gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp