Re: IE and their dogs : long-haired sheepdogs

--- In cybalist@..., "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:47:12 -0000, "Richard Wordingham"
> > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> >
> > >... item 18 in
> > >Miguel's account of PIE consonant stems at
> > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/16501 .
>
> > I explain the l/n heteroclisis from earlier (certainly not

recent!)

> > **-ln-: in the Auslaut *-ln > *-lr, and then probably *-ll > *-l,
> > while in the Inlaut *-ln- is still present in Slavic slUnIce <
> > *suln-iko-), but was mostly assimilated to -ll- (Greek <he:lios>,
> not
> > *<he(:)ilos>) > -l- (which can of course also be analogical after
> the
> > NA) or -nn- (Germanic *sunn-o:n) > -n- (as in the Avestan

genitive).

>
> I'm a tad queasy at having to reconstruct Torsten, but here goes.
>
> Like Tolkien's languages, PIE moves along two timelines. One,
> spanning millennia, is its ancient development, though here it is
> better to call it pre-Indo-European then Proto-Indo-European. The
> other, measured in centuries, is that of it changing

reconstruction,

> which also has many dialects (voiceless aspirates, number of velar
> series, extent of laryngeals, etc.) and several spelling

conventions.

>
> When Torsten said the 'sun' word had _recently_ become

heteroclitic,

> I believe he was referring to the latter, reconstructors' time

line.

> A generation ago, brief descriptions of PIE and its group did not
> mention heteroclisis in the word for 'sun'. For example, Onions'
> Oxford Etymological Dictionary refers to 'l' and 'n' extensions for
> the word; it gives the Gothic as something like 'sauil' or 'sauils'
> (I don't remember which) and says nothing about oblique cases
> having 'n'. It doesn't quote the Avestan cognate.
>
> I believe that Torsten therefore reasonably saw the reconstruction

of

> a heteroclitic declension for the word, as opposed to two similar
> synonyms, as a recent change in the reconstruction of PIE.
>
> Torsten, please write! Have I understood you?
>
> I'm now getting confused by what Miguel's reconstruction (n.s.
> *sah2wal, g.s. *sh2[wé|ú][l|n]s) actually means. Is it merely the
> consonant stem form, co-existing with other formations?
>
> The suggestion of pre-Germanic -ln- > -nn- bothers me slightly; I
> though we had PIE *kl.ni- 'hill' > Germanic *hulli- (OE hyll, at

any

> rate) 'do.', Latin collis 'do.'.
>
> Richard.

This is rather embarassing. It turns out I got the information from
Beekes "Comparative IndoEuropean Linguistics", and he says nothing
about the reconstruction beng recent. Perhaps the fact that I hadn't
seen it before led my brain to classify the reconstruction
as "recent". My ears are red. Seems your reconstruction of me was
rather accurate.

Torsten