--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:
> Because I think that, of the four laryngeals in Nostratic (/?,
h, ¿, H/), by pre-PIE, only two remained: /?/ and /h/, neither of
which had 'coloring' properties.
What do you mean by "by pre-PIE"? How far pre? By PIE, we know with
certainty that three distinct laryngeals existed. They cause three
distinct sets of secondary developments in Greek. There is no way
that can be accounted for by a system containing only two
laryngeals.
> In my hypothesis, PIE *a/*a: can only be there because Nostratic
*a was lengthened, and so retained its vowel quality; Nostratic
short *a (like short *e and *o) would have become the Ablaut vowel.
I arrived at the same (tentative) conclusion on the basis of IE
alone, only I do not see the justification for calling the long /a:/
lengthened rather than just long.
> In order for PIE *a to have been retained, it must previously
have been lengthened.
>
> Therefore: *hayés- > *a:yés- > *á:yos- > *áyos-.
But if the laryngeal is /H2/, the [a] could be /e/. That's why I
said: "That makes "*hayés-" suspect. Why did you depart from
precisely that form?"
> For two reasons:
>
> 1) I have identified, I think, two major sources of -*s-stems
in PIE: -*s, 'state or condition', and -*s, 'color adjectives'; I
think this is from the latter;
Could you mention six or seven examples that gave you the impression
that s-stems are colour adjectives? I don't know any. Your "reason"
says nothing that favours unaccented *ha- over *H2é- for the
interesting prestage of PIE.
> 2) I believe originally short PIE *o arises from *é from which
the stress-accent has been removed.
Some apparently believe that. Maybe you could then explain to me why
they have that belief. If *p&2té:r is opposed to *swéso:r, doesn't
the difference of accnt placing suffice to explain -e-/-o- (as input
to subsequent lengthening), does the o-form really have to have been
accented earlier??
> 3) the analytical development of this word, as I see it, is
*há, 'water' + *ye, '-like' = *háye, 'water-like' = 'wet,
reflective, bright' + *so, 'skin', forms color adjectives/nouns =
*hayés(o), 'metal(lic), reflective substance'. > pre-PIE *a:yés-.
Each new morpheme added onto the right shifts the stress-accent one
place to the right; so, for polysyllables, basically a penultimate
accent. But then, probably because of contact with a root-syllable-
accenting language speaking group (Uralics? Basques?), root-syllable
accentuation became the rule for PIE, with formerly accented *é
becoming *o: > *á:yos-; with no competing **áyos- from another
source > *áyos- by 'economy of effort' principle.
Is there any evidence to show this, or is it just idle speculation?
> If you would want to provide an example of a -*s-root that you
feel contravenes my hypotheses, I would be glad to _try_ to explain
it.
I have no basis on which to check you postulates. If I say
*ménos 'though' is against this, you will just say *me- 'shoe', *na-
'stone' => 'have stone in shoe, worry', + *-so 'skin' => 'getting
worry over stone in shoe under one's skin' or some such nonsense. I
don't see the point. This is a public discussion list: Does ANYBODY
ELSE see a point in this?
> The one that comes immediately to mind for me is *awes-. This is
a little different accentually because, I believe, the -*s came from
*-sa:, the earlier form of the 'condition or state' suffix. I
hypothesize: *há-wa: > *há-wa + *sha = *a:wésa: (any short vowel,
when stress-accented, becomes *é) > *a:wésa (final stress-unaccented
vowel are shortened or lost, if short already) > (root-syllable
accentuation leftward shift prevented by voweled final syllable)
which is subsequently lost *a:wés-. PIE *(a/a:)us-o:s- is, I
believe, a result of reduplication: *a:wos-á:wos-. I suspect that
the earliest semantic reference of this word was to the dew that
forms at dawn rather than the onset of sunlight itself. There are
many associations of this word with the planet Venus, which, our
ancestors believed, was connected with moisture and water.
You seem to be a complete stranger to the general prerequisite of
scholarly debate that statements be justified. Does ANYBODY ELSE see
any point in this?
[Jens:]
> Does this mean: Nostratic *-a?- > PIE *-a:- without laryngeal in
> PIE? I would be ready to accept that, provided there is some
> evidence showing it.
> Patrick:
> Well, my reasoning here will probably be a little strange but
based on other hypotheses, any long vowel after *n can _only_ come
as a result of a 'laryngeal' after the vowel; any aspirated
Nostratic *nh* became *l in PIE (in Sumerian also; though it shows
up as <n> in Egyptian) so *nV: has to reflect a
following 'laryngeal' or deletion of some other consonantal phoneme.
Though you may not agree, for my purposes, pre-PIE /?/ is also
a 'laryngeal'. I do not believe, as Bomhard does, that long vowels
were present in Nostratic. Any long vowel in PIE, therefore, is a
result of a short Nostratic vowel + preceding lost aspiration or a
following 'laryngeal' or compensated consonant.
Could you mention some facts that has forced you to formulate one of
the hypotheses involved in this? As it stands, you are only saying:
I know, and I won't tell you why. Grimm and Verner did not do that.
> I speculate that the process involved is basically 'any hemimora
is retained': if the *C is removed from any VC* closed segment, the
*V is lengthened by one hemimora: *VV = *V:; I consider *CV and *V:
one full mora.
Couldn't you do better than just "speculate" and instead
*demonstrate* that it is that way?
> This particular root is one that derives from (Northern?)
Nostratic but does not seem to be present in either Egyptian (as a
representative of AA), or Sumerian so direct proof is not possible.
Then on what grounds *are* you making such pronouncements?
>
> But any PIE root that has a voiced initial plosive, *b, *bh, *d,
*dh, *g, *gh which shows *CV: is a result of Nostratic *CVL
(aryngeal). In the long discussion we had over the significance of
*CV?- roots, which you showed rather conclusively, could not
be 'statives' for PIE as I had postulated, what we actually see is
*CV:-. I still think they had a stative significance in Nostratic,
and are the result of *CV + *?a, a 'stative' suffix, but this was
obviously lost by PIE; and we can consider PIE *CV: a lexicalized
root without stative significance.
If you "still think" something, you should also have a reason for so
thinking. Now what reason drove you to this?
> > I am afraid you will like my explanation of *sal- even less.
> Here, I believe the pre-Nostratic form was *sHala-, i.e. with
> aspirated /s/: Nostratic *sa:l-.
[Jens:]
> Does this mean: Nost. aspiration + /a/ > PIE /a:/ without
> laryngeals? I can accept that too if it is supported by evidence.
> Patrick:
> Yes, if we mean 'lost' aspiration.
>
> As for evidence, this may be the hypothesis that you will have
the most difficult time accepting because it contravenes current PIE
theory so much. I believe that voiceless aspirated plosives must be
reconstructed for PIE: *ph, *th, and *kh.
I know they must, the evidence is there.
> Aside from the sproadic evidence in Old Indian, they can be
detected by the lengthened vowel in PIE but, with the lengthening
effect of suffixed -*?a, this is a very tricky proposition. It is
really only through Egyptian that an aspirated voiceless plosive can
be confirmed. If we have a PIE *ta:, we can only know that it is
from *t(h)a rather than *ta? if an Egyptian cognate shows <D> rather
than <d>. And then there is the semantic 'evidence'; *tha means
something slightly different than *ta.
I have no idea what you're talking about. How can an opposition
believed to be retained in Egyptian prove that the same opposition
was retained also in Indo-European?
> PIE *mel-, 'beat', for example, I believe derives from Nostratic
*male:- (Egyptian mn, '*mace'); it forms no exceptions to regular
Ablaut.
Do you mean the root of Eng. mill and meal? Why would that have
original -a-, and, even more bewildering, how can the Egyptian word
show anything about it? Bomhard/Kerns posit mul-/mol-, apparently on
the basis of Uralic mol-.
> My impression is that /a:/ will not reduce farther than /a/,
however.
Mine too.
> On the other hand, we have PIE *ansu-, 'spirit', which, I
believe, derives from Nostratic *ngo-só-wa. This produced *n(g)séu,
and finally with the root-syllable stress-accentuation, *'n(g)sou-,
to which a prothetic *a- was added: *ánsu-. This prothetic vowel
_could_ disappear with regular further shifts: *Nsú- (cognate:
Egyptian gs, 'friendly, (by the) side').
The Hitt. cunterpart of Norse O,ss (stem *ansu-) is hassu- 'king'.
You cannot let the word begin with the nasal.
>
> ***
> > Before I offer an opinion on "*ste:w- -> *sté:w-/*stéw-",
could
> you confirm for me if this is the root meaning 'thicken'?
[Jens:]
> It isn't: *stew- 'bekannt sein, preisen' (Kümmel in LIV,
> although 'bekannt sein' is plainly just the mediopassive). It's
one
> of the most classical examples of Narten ablaut.
> Patrick:
> Yes, I would have to agree on all counts. I would hypothesize
that the Nostratic form was *dá-wa, seen in PIE *deu-, 'honor,
praise' (cognate, Egyptian dw[3], 'praise'); with *s-mobile,
*ste/e:u-, 'praise well/loudly. this long vowel is a result of
purely internal PIE processes
Why on earth should the root be pieced together by material of other
roots? What IE material are you talking about? There is quite some
hesitation about roots that look like this in IE. LIV acknowledges
*dewH2- 'zusammenfügen', and perhaps that's all it is. There may
also be evidence for a root of the shape *deHw- however, but that is
something quite new to the field. None of these would fit *stew-.
> I do not expect that you will be able to agree with much of what
I have hypothesized but thank you for the opportunity to expostulate
it.
Do you mean "expound"? Expostulate seems to have some quite
embarrassing meanings which you hardly intend. Or has that been lost?
Jens