Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:33:21 -0800 (PST), enlil@... wrote:

>Me:
>> Since there is absolutely (and I mean _absolutely_) no evidence
>> for *-ks once being **ts(W), why theorize it?
>
>Miguel:
>> Because if we don't assume a development ds^ > ts > ks, the Semitic
>> borrowing hypothesis must be abandoned.
>
>That reasoning makes no sense. I just finished talking about
>hypercorrection in my "American pronunciation" post and the
>mispronunciation of foreign words too.
>
>As I said in that post, we most often pronounce "Beijing" with a
>/3/ even though Mandarin speakers use /d3/.

I did not introduce the transcription /3/ instead of IPA /dz/ for it to be
misused as IPA /Z/ (yogh). Stop that.

>Following your reasoning
>then: Since Mandarin speakers always pronounce it as /d3/ and we
>have /d3/ in our sound system, the idea that "Beijing" is a borrowed
>name from Mandarin "must be abandoned".

I wasn't aware that writing had been invented at the time we were
discussing.

>> PIE, to my knowledge, didn't have /ts/,
>
>Why wouldn't they?

They just didn't.

>They could certainly have it in medial position,

Examples?

>even in Mid IE, afaic. And even speaking of IE itself, how would
>you pronounce *sedtos or *edti?

/sedtos/, /edti/ later /se3tos/, /e3ti/.

>> so it's conceivable that the word was changed so that it included
>> the cluster /ks/ instead.
>
>Since your claim is based on nothing, it's not conceivable. Instead,
>it's still unnecessary assumption.
>
>
>>> I could come half-way with you and say that the original form
>>> could have been *sWeksWa,
>>
>> Yes. Or *sWeksWu.
>
>No

Yes, since -u is what the Semitic nominative has.

>> I don't understand what your problem is. We have Semitic /dc^/
>> or /ds^/, we have PIE /k^s/. What do *you* suggest the
>> development was?
>
>Simple: Semitic *dc^ -> IE *ks.

That must be a use of the word "simple" that I wasn't previously aware of.

>> You weren't paying attention. Here's another quote:
>>
>> [*] note that "7" is irregular in East Semitic: we have <sebe>
>> for expected *<s^ebe>.
>
>Ah, thanks. Mea culpa.
>
>
>> 1) *septm. was borrowed from Proto-Semitic *sab`-atu-m
>> *sweks was borrowed later proto-North Semitic *s^idc^-u
>>
>> 2) *sweks was borrowed from proto-North Semitic *s^idc^-u
>> *septm. was borrowed later from East Semitic *seb(`)-etu-m
>>
>> I much prefer (2).
>
>But "_Why_ do you prefer #2?"

Because Proto-Semitic is too old and to remote for it to have been in
contact with PIE.
Because it's more likely that a form with "advanced" features like gender
polarization and mimation was borrowed later than a form without such
features (both are Semitic innovations with AA, so we'd expect them to have
arisen late rather than early).

>It would most logically be easier for IE to have adopted
>Semitic loanwords from the west than from the east

Not at all. What language were the documents first showing evidence for
Hittites/Luwians in Anatolia written in? Where did Mesopotamia get its
metal ores from? The NW Semites weren't in contact with much anybody until
the Phoenicians built themselves a fleet, but that was much later.

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