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

----- Original Message -----

From: alexandru_mg3

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:11 AM

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

--- 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 "!" )

 

***

Patrick:

 

I am sure you do not mean 'self-sufficient' since, in English, that _cannot_ be construed as a recrimination. Do you perhaps mean 'oblivious' (to other data)?

 

I am not ignoring anything, in my opinion. Every game has some firm rules. In PIE, *e: cannot become *o: through Ablaut; *e/*o Ablaut variations only affect the short vowel, *V, which is realized as *e or *o.

 

Perhaps you would do better with *eu:?

 

***

 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...

 

***

Patrick:

 

If you misuse terminology as above, do not be surprised if you are misunderstood.

 

Both stems (Leiden) and roots are _reconstructed_. You meant, I think, 'extended form' or 'root-extended stem'.

 

***

 

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