Re: [tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)

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

From: elmeras2000

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 7:35 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)

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

>   Yes, you are right, I do not understand.
>
>   I thought we were discussing *g^hdhem-, 'earth' (*g^h-dem-).
>   I thought the word in the original posting about pronunciation
difficulty ("dhghem") was a simple transposition error.
>
>   What on Earth is your *d(h)ég^h-o:m above?  I know no such word
for PIE.

You don't? Fair enough. The word for "earth" is Hitt. tekan, gen.
tagnas, which must represent a more original form of the paradigm
which was changed in the other branches by introduction of the
product of the cluster *d(h)g^h- as it had been in the locative, **d
(h)g^h-ém(-i) > IE *g^h{th}ém(-i) (Ved. ks.ámi). This is one of the
mainstays of the understanding of the "thorn" clusters in IE. It is
of course also one of the basic arguments for an Indo-Hittite model,
indicating as it does that Anatolian was the first branch to split
away from the IE unity. This is all classical knowledge by now.

Jens


***

Patrick:

Some very competent linguists of the past (Benveniste, for one) looked at the disconnect between Hittite and _ALL_ the other IE-derived languages, and concluded that Hittite introduced the metathesis; so the original form was *g^h-Dem- (I will use -D for bar-d, thorn).

 

In order for _ALL_ the other IE-derived languages to have made the metathesis instead of Hittite, we are forced to assume a theoretical unity of _ALL_ non-Hittite languages which is barely theoretically possible but highly unlikely.

 

As far as "classical knowledge" is concerned, "classical knowledge" once held the world was flat although there were, at all times, those who asserted it was round.

 

Frankly, just the initial premise is preposterous.

 

But then to explain it, as you seem to be doing, by an _ALL_ non-Hittite response to the phonological shape generated by the word in the locative (really just an adjectival form) case, compounds preposterousness with sheer incredibility.

 

What on Earth leads you (or anyone else) to think that *g^h-Dém-i- would, in any way, merit a different phonological deveopmental response from *g^h-Dém-???  This, by itself, is highly suspect. Then to compound the gaucherie, to suggest that the metathesis to **-D/dhg^ém-i- somehow relates to different phonotactics occasioned by the addition of -*i,  beggars belief. Just what do you think is the phonotactic principle involved here? Euphony? To my way of thinking, *-Dg^h- has no advantage whatsoever over *g^h-D- as an initial cluster. Tell me what advantage you imagine here. And forget about thorn. If our understanfing of thorn is based on the premises mentioned above, the problem desperately needs a new look.

 

You asked in an earlier posting about the "proof" for <*dh> in the word: Greek <th> is the regular response to PIE <*dh>; and the Greek reflex is khthó:n.

 

It is an gross example of inbred pedantic scholastic thinking in its very worst sense to reconstruct a PIE phone (thorn) to explain the aberrant reponses to *dh in this cluster for the sake of three or four words. I do not believe I have ever seen a reputable table of PIE sounds that included it. 

 

The proper method is to reconstruct it as you seem to be doing above as *g^hdhém-, and then seek to explain the aberrant reflexes of _this_ cluster. This in no way necessitates or even makes desirable the postulation of a new phone which is simply diletante.

 

I have come to expect a much higher level of argumentation from you, Jens, and this line of reasoning seems, itself, 'aberrant' to me.

 

I have my own ideas about this word and its original significance; and I think it is mandatory to incorporate into the semantic and phonological explanation the relationship of *g^hdhyés, 'yesterday', and *g^hdhu:, 'fish' to *g^hdhem-.

 

Sorry to have to be so negative but I am really disappointed.

 

Now when you write back to tell me what an idiot I am, just remember, you are tarring Benveniste with the same brush.

 

 

 

 

Patrick