From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 39160
Date: 2005-07-10
----- Original Message -----> 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?
Indeed this is a major argument in favour of *dheg^h-.***Patrick:Not necessarily, Miguel. It looks likelier to me that Tocharian has metathesized *g^hdhém while Hittite has derived tekan (better tikan) from your *dheigh- (cf. Latin fictilis, 'earthen, clayey').***<snip>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> "Of course"? Ah yes, argumentum ex superbiâ.
>
> And, of course, Pokorny agrees with Benveniste not with you:
> ". . . ich würde die hitt. und toch. Formen mit Benveniste
> lieber fernhalten."
Not even you believes that. It is absolutely clear that
Hitt. <tekan> and TochA <tkam.> are related to each other
and to the other "earth" words (BS *zem-, Av. zam-, Skt.
ks.a:, jmas/gmas, Grk. khtho:n etc.)***Patrick:Yes, _even_ I believe(s) it. See above.I do not think it so "absolutely clear" at all.I am troubled by the 'vowel retention' in Hittite and its absence in Tocharian.***
> "Easier to pronounce" - is that what you think motivates metathesis?
Yes.
> As we covered in an earlier round of comments, both (dhgh and ghdh)
>are equally "easy" for a native speaker.
Apparently not for native speakers of Ancient Greek (*titko:
> tikto:). The harmonic cluster /kt/ is generally easier to
pronounce than the inharmonic cluster /tk/.***Patrick:For you, everything is "of course, absolutely clear, apparent(ly)". I wish I could live in a world of such adamantine clarity and certainty!As for metathesis, I think it involves an error of transmission. Whether the error is motivated or not is irrelevant.When I roll harmonic /ti-kto:/ and inharmonic /ti-tko:/ around in my mouth, they seem equally easy to pronounce.Whence comes this 'consonant harmony' theory? Trask's phonetician's dictionary knows it not.***
> 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.
Gamkrelidze and Machavariani are the authors of the standard
work on Proto-Kartvelian (Sonant'ta sist'ema da ablaut'i
Kartvelur enebshi, 1965).***Patrick:You cited their credits but you avoided an endorsement. How revealing!***
> "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-!
Yes there is: Greek always metathesizes clusters like this
(tikto:).***Patrick:Oh? How many of these are there?***
> 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?
It's plain phonetics: in an initial cluster of two stops,
the first one will tend to be unreleased and practically
devoid of phonetic identity, while the second one will be
truly plosive and clearly recognizable by the formant
transitions happening in the following vowel. Other things
being equal, one would expect the second stop to be more
stable over time.***Patrick:I asked for examples and you restate the theory.I already understood the theory. How about some examples - from PIE?***
In any case, I don't think the "thorn-clusters" represent a
problem in Indo-European linguistics anympore. The issue
has been resolved: they come from (pre-)PIE inharmonic
clusters tk/dg/dhgh (c.q. pk/bg/bhgh). A clear example
outside initial position is *h2artkos "bear" = Hitt.
hartagga. In retrospect, it's hard to understand what all
the fuss was about: it's not as if a Greek verb form like
tikto:, with uncontestable metathesis, is an obscure aspect
of the Greek language.