[tied] Re: Early PAlb Depalatisations of k', g' > k, g

Sorry not Brian but Ryan ...I apologize...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-

language@...>

> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Early PAlb Depalatisations of k', g' >

k,

> g
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > PIE *e: simply does not yield *o: in Balto-Slavic.
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Nor does it in any IE language!
>
>
> Well, well ...once again "quick answers" for a "delicate story"
> (after all the posted messages here especially that ones posted by
> Sergei to come back to such a simple conclusion...sound very

strange

> for me):
>
> I will try to resume here the situation:
>
> 1. we need here an e/i in the root because the depalatisation

took

> place.
> (=> Miguel's supposed form *k'low- will give Lith. klau- as in

Lith

> klausyti)
>
> 2. we don't have a SIMPLE e: here but *e:w from *ew(H)
>
> (but ignoring the real context is easy to define and to invent a
> complete different situation...and next to be 'self-sufficient' and
> to arrive to say : "Nor does it in any IE language!" with an
> additional "!" )
>
> a) Kortlandt's derivation:
> --------------------------
> Miguel, Brian see below Kortlandt's explanation (even you like

it

> or not, from the pdf that Sergei indicayted you):
>
> Kortlandt:
> "In the case of Lith. Slove: 'glory', OCS. slava, which cannot be
> separated from Latin clue:re 'be mentioned', I think that we have

to

> start from a form *k'le:uH1, with analogical lengthened grade
> as in Gothic qe:ns 'wife', PIE. *gwenH2, or Gr. e:par 'liver', PIE.
> *iekwr. "
>
> b) Derksen's derivation:
> ------------------------
> Following Kortlandt, Dersken has proposed *k'le:uH- too
> (->see on Leiden -> the Lithuanian dictionary).
> (Maybe Dersken has changed his opinion after the "the 3rd

Level

> Contact with Miguel on Zagreb Airport" ...but "currently the Leiden
> site still wasn't informed" about this)
>
> On Leiden k'le:uH- is the reconstructed PIE, Miguel, not the PIE

root

> so please don't create again confusions
> => I have hoped that after you have read Kortlandt you have
> understood better that Dersken's has kept Kortlandt's derivation
> k'le:uH- -> so we have quite the reconstructed form on Leiden not a
> PIE root...and I'm convinced that you have understood this too,
> however you have continued to create confusions regarding the

meaning

> on some fields that exists on Leiden.
>
> c) Sergei's posted rule ew > aw
> -------------------------------
> Please rememnber also, that Sergei correctly indicates you the

rule

> ew > aw
>
>
>
> So based on Kortlandt (followed by Dersken), the original PIE
> contained *e:w from *ewH (and this finally gave a:w in Balto-Slavic)
>
> In fact I found that would be more appropriate to explain the long
> vowel in place of "an analogical lengthened grade" by considering
> here "a laryngeal metathesis" :
>
> *ewh1 > *eh1w > e:w
>
> and maybe also that the laryngeal wasn't h1 but h2 (but this second
> part is still only a pure supposition from my side needed to be
> further checked):
>
> *ewh2 > *eh2w > a:w
>
> Anyway in this context, PIE *e:w gave Balto-Slavic a:w (maybe

similar

> with ew > aw indicated by Sergei)
>
> and the derivation doesn't raise issues because next:
>
> BSl. a: > Lith. o
> BSl. a: > Sl. a
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Marius
>
>
> P.S.: What is wrong regarding Dersken reconstruction is the Balto-
> Slavic reconstruction that is s'lo:u- (Dersken himself put an (?)
> after his Balto-Slavic reconstruction).
> The correct Balto-Slavic reconstructed form is *c'la:u