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

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

From: Miguel Carrasquer

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 3:13 PM

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

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:46:58 -0500, Patrick Ryan
<proto-language@...> wrote:

>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Miguel Carrasquer<mailto:mcv@...>
>  On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:22:42 -0500, Patrick Ryan
>  >  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.

Yeah, he says that the Hittite and Tocharian forms are not
related, which is unacceptable. 

The reconstruction *g^hðo:m is a past station, nobody
belives in that anymore.

***

Patrick:

 

So what if Hittite and Tocharian are related or unrelated. Both could have easily independently metathesized the word as have inherited it for a mutual source.

 

Actually, that is the way it looks to me - independent. If they had a common source, why has Tocharian lost the root-vowel (tkaM) while Hittite has retained it (tekan) - if it has?

 

***

 

>  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).

Of course.  Metathesis *dhgh- > *ghdh- is trivial,
velar-to-dental clusters being easier to pronounce than
dental-to-velar ones ["harmonic clusters"] (see Gamqrelidze
and Ivanov or Gamqrelidze and Machavariani for parallel
phenomena in Kartvelian).  The Hittite form, on the other
hand, shows the consonants in their original order with an
intervening vowel.  There is no reason whatsoever for
Hittite to have metathesized *g^hedh- to *dheg^h-, so
*dheg^h- is the original order.  As confirmed by Tocharian
<tk->, and by *g^h- (with loss of the initial consonant, as
expected) in Sanskrit (jmas, gmas), Avestan, Balto-Slavic,
Greek (khamai), Latin, Germanic, Tocharian...

***

Patrick:

 

"Of course"? Ah yes, argumentum ex superbiâ.

 

And, of course, Pokorny agress with Benvenise not with you: ". . ich würde die hitt. und toch. Formen mit Benveniste lieber fernhalten."

 

"Easier to pronounce" — is that what you think motivates metathesis?

 

As we covered in an earlier round of comments, both (dhgh and ghdh) are equally "easy" for a native speaker.

 

As far as the referenced Georgians are concerned, if they wrote that the sun had come up this morning, I would withhold judgment until I looked out the window for an accurate answer.

 

"There is no reason whatsoever for Hittite to have metathesized *g^hedh- to *dheg^h-."

 

There is also no reason whatsoever for Greek to have metathesized and zero-graded *dheg^h- to

*g^h(e)dh-!

 

Now you introduce a rule that in initial consonantal clusters, the _first consonant_ will be eliminated if either is. How about a few more examples of that unrelated to this root?

 

***

 

 

 

 >  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:-?

Of course.  And *(dh)g^hyes "yesterday".  And *tek- "to give
birth" (Grk. teknon, but tikto: < *ti-tk-o:).  Metathesis is
completely regular in Greek inharmonic clusters of this
kind.

***

Patrick:

 

Well, I know you are no foe of Nostratic.

 

I believe *g^hdhu:-, 'fish', is cognate with Egyptian H'(.w), 'flesh'.

 

***

 

 

 

 

Patrick