From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 37987
Date: 2005-05-21
----- Original Message -----From: elmeras2000Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:48 AMSubject: Re: [tied] IE *de:(y)- 'bind'.<snip>> ***
> Patrick wrote:
>
> In PIE, -*t(o) as an agentive formant of nouns is _exactly_ what
we should expect if -*to has future-prospective force in verbs.
By what principle? I see no rhyme or reason in this.***Patrick writes:Since "verbs" were once nouns, any nominal formant is immediately potentially a verbal formant.We have already seen various examples: *-ye, which forms adjectives from nouns, or merely differentiates related meanings in nouns, indicates the durative from _unmarked_ punctual verbal roots.*-Ha, which forms locatives from nouns, indicates the stative in verbs.*-to, which forms collectives in nouns, indicates future-prospective in verbs, including its agentive use.*-wa forms sets in nouns, indicates perfective modality in verbs, including the *-u of (originally participial) adjectives.Referring to the example _you_ used, *gWhen-t-, 'beater' (your 'killer'; I prefer 'beater' in view of Egyptian Xn, 'be blistered, row'). A 'beater' is 'someone who is expected to beat', and because of that expectation, presumably 'has beaten'.It would sadden me greatly if you could _not_ see the reason when so explained.***
>
> I therefore consider the comparison I made among *mór-to-s,
Sumerian -ed (for *et), and Egyptian sDm.t.f, sDm.tj.fj, and
infinitives in .t validated.
> ***I'm sure you do. I'm afraid I can't use your conviction for anything
interesting.***Patrick writes:I have showed parallel employments for an element that is, if one subscribes to Nostratic theory, in three related languages.That is the basis of my conviction.Why is my conviction worth so little in comparison to yours?***
<snip>The
laryngeal
> in *H3reg^- is directly proved by Hittite harganau- 'finger' and
> Avest. &r&zu- adj. 'erect' or m. 'finger', reflecting *H3r.g^-ú-
and
> in part a factitive verb *H3r.g^-n-u- 'make erect, stretch out'.
>
>
> ***
> Patrick wrote:
>
> It seems to me that you define things to suit the argument of
the moment.
>
> *H3o is full-grade; *reg^- is full-grade.
>
> The first thing to be noticed is that, in Pokorny, all entries
under *1. reg^- that pertain directly to 'king' and 'rule as king'
have *e: not *e; including Old Indian rá:jati, 'is king, rules'.
>
> The only correct conclusion to draw from this is that the root
for 'king' is *re:g^- not *reg^-.
It is, but a lengthened-grade root segment has weak alternants with
short full vocalism. In EIEC Adams quotes Khotanese forms with
Iranian -a- in rräspu:ra- 'prince', rräysduar- 'princess' as opposed
to kathira:ysa- 'king' from Iran raz- and ra:z- respectively.
Likewise Avestan ra:zar& 'rule, command, regulation' has the gen.
ra:z&:ng, but instrumental ras^na:, also reflecting an ablaut ra:z-
/raz-.***Patrick writes:If we accepted short vowel variants of long vowel roots as proof for original short vowels in the roots, we would have no roots in long vowels.***
There is also reflex of underlying lengthened-grade in the
participle *H3rég^-to-s with full-grade rather than zero-grade. That
is the same extra mora as in the verb rá:s.t.i 'rules'.***Patrick writes:Why would *H3reg^- be anything other than full-grade if it receives the accent?***
> In no PIE-derived language does 'king' show up with any element
corresponding to an initial *H3o- or *H3-. It is, therefore, not
only unjustified to reconstruct 'king' as *H3reg^-, it is also
simply ridiculous.
No, only Greek would show a reflex of the laryngeal, and Greek has
not retained the words for king corresponding to Lat. re:x, Ved.
rá:j-.***Patrick writes:Then what does iraj- represent?***
Still, if we draw on all sources of information, we do seem to find
the laryngeal in the Vedic word for king.
Some particples like gha/gha: and nú/nú: are used with length only
when this is required by the metre. The only deviation is gha: in RV
1.178.2 ná gha: rá:jéndra á: dabhan no 'nicht soll uns König Indra
darum bringen' (Geldner); the padapa:t.ha gives the pausa forms
rá:ja: - índrah. - dabhat. In this unique instance the particle
shows a long vowel that cannot be ascribed to metrical concerns. It
is however very easily explained by the lengthening effect of the
following laryngeal in *H3ré:g^-o: 'king'. And the laryngeal is
confirmed by Greek orégo: to the satisfaction of anybody who has not
moved himself into a position of bias against it.
***Patrick writes:I admit to a bias against 'monster roots' that conflate every variant into an artificial conglomeration.So, now the always missing 'laryngeal' shows up as a lengthening of a previous syllable in poetry? That is really inventive but totally unconvincing.***
> This is also supported by Sumerian rîg, 'king'.
How is that written? Are you marking vowel length in the word? Could
you be more specific, please?***Patrick writes:Certainly. rig is written GA2.GI. I am marking vowel length in accordance with what I believe to be the actual Sumerian response to Nostratic *e: but vowel length is not distinguished in normal Sumerian transcription.***
> So, it is obvious that the root listed by Pokorny as *1. reg^-
should be kept strictly separate from *re:g^-, 'king'.
The opposite is obvious to me.
<snip>
> And the great brunt of the attested derivations do not show any
trace of *H3(o)- so it is necessary to conclude that it is an added
element to the root *reg^-.
> ***
That is of course because the root is *H3reg^- and only Greek can
generally show the prothetic vowel. Therefore it is in Greek we find
it. We do however have the Vedic forms with iraj- and the
lengthening before rá:ja:, and also Hitt. harganau-. This shows that
the root of the words meaning 'king' and the root meaning 'stretch
out' both had an initial laryngeal. Also the rudimentary ablaut
properties of the root point to identity of the entire set.***Patrick writes:As vivacious as the PIE's were, I laugh at the idea that their ruler would have been named 'the erect one' -- in those far-gone days before Viagra.We have 15 pages of roots beginning with *o- in Pokorny. If you want to believe about *H3o that "only Greek can generally show" it, be my guest. Those 15 pages demonstrate unequivocably that you are wrong.We do have Vedic iraj-, which, in my opinion also, shows the effects of a laryngeal in zero-grade.If *re:g^- be just a lengthened grade form of *reg^-, _which I dispute_, it is quite possible that *H3reg^- was a development restricted to reg^- in its meaning of 'arrange, order' from 'stretch out (in a row)'.As far as lengthened gha: goes, it lengthens to accommodate the metre in circumstances when it is definitely not followed by an invisible laryngeal.Hittite harganau- has nothing to do with 'king' or 'kingship'.To conclude that these circumstances prove that *re:g^-, 'king', ever had an initial *H3-, is an act of faith by a person who has a faulty method for determining root-shapes: namely the conflation that has been rightfully criticized so much in Starostin's unfortunate Caucasian reconstructions.The sentence: "the rudimentary ablaut properties of the root point to identity of the entire set" is so many words strung together to sound _as if_ they actually mean something.All ancient cultures, especially agricultural-based ones, were vitally concerned with the weather.Why is it so unbelieveable to you that we have uncovered the term for the PIE 'rain-man' (Sumerian, too)?Patrick***
Jens
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cybalist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/