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

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

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:07 PM

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

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:22:42 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: elmeras2000<mailto:jer@...>
>  To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>  Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 7:35 AM
>  Subject: [tied] Re: Schwa (Was PIE Reconstruction)
>
>
>  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
>  language@...<mailto: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

Nonsense. Only Greek has the metathesis (*d(h)g^ho:m >
khtho:n), since Skt. ks.- is inconclusive.

 

***

Patrick:

 

What is nonsense? Are you saying that Benveniste DID NOT look at the problem. Well, unless Pokorny is a liar, he did, and judged  that *g^hdhem- was original.

 

Sanskrit shows the order 'dorsal-coronal', regardless of the voicing or closure - the same as Greek. To call that "inconclusive" is reckless.

 

***

The order dental-velar is proven by Hittite <tekan> and
Tocharian A <tkam.>.  That's conclusive.

***

Patrick:

 

So, two examples (you like) trumps two examples (I like). Do you play poker? I think I could make some money off you with this logic.

 

***

Wether the inital consonant was *d- or *dh- is undecidable:
Hitt. does not distinguish between *d- and *dh- (or *t-),
and the cluster *dhg^ h- that we have elsewhere can just as
well be from *dg^h- by assimilation.

(I would still opt for *dhg^h- in view of PIE *dheig^h-
"clay, earth (as material) => pottery, wall" and Kartv.
*tiqa- (i.e *thiqha-) "clay, earth", but that's of course
circumstancial evidence.)

 ***

Patrick:

 

First, we ignore the clear Greek and Old Indian evidence, then we ignore -*i-. What kind of innovative method is this?

 

And secondly, you ignore the implications of the other two words which are reconstructed with the same unusual initial cluster.

 

Of course, Greek ikhthûs must be ignored. Or do you say that 'fish' should be *dhg^hu:-? Another case of Greek metathesis?

 

Your use of the word(s) "(in)conclusive" is very idiosyncratic, and I can imagine no basis for your using them  as you do.