From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 39467
Date: 2005-07-28
----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:49 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Short and long vowels
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-
language@...> wrote:
> But what I found was, although dorsals are palatalized by a
folowing
> Nostratic *e - without exception that I can see - only coronal
affricates
> show *w (not *W) when they were preceded Nostratic *o, with the
probable
> exception that dorsal stops from original dorsal nasals seem to
show it
> also, but this time as *W rather than *w (example, *gWo(:)u-).
>
> What surprised me greatly was that the velarized dorsals (*gW,
*kW) showed
> up in Sumerian as <s> (/ç/) and <h> (/x/), and in Egyptian as <s>
(/ç/) and
> <H> (bar-h), (/x/). This supposed Nostratic /ç/ and /x/. This
seemed very
> UNnatural to me; and I resisted accepting the PIE correspondence
until I had
> found dozens of examples that substantiated it.
This could be a convenient way to test your results. Could you just
give us *half* a dozen items from each set, please? I mean of course
words that correspond to words, not monkey-help-die-begin = apple or
whatever you have been serving us in the past.
***
Patrick:
Certainly, I would be glad to do that.
I will not offer pre-Nostratic reconstructions to put the worm in the apple.
1) PIE *gWem-, 'go'; Egyptian sm, 'go';
2) PIE gWi:-nó-, 'fur'; Egyptian sn.w,'hair';
3) PIE *gWei-, 'cry'; Sumerian se-x (IG~I-A), 'cry';
4) PIE *gWei-, 'live'; Sumerian si-i, 'live';
5) PIE *gWel-, 'pour out'; Egyptian in Hnm.t, 'well'; Sumerian hal, 'pour
out'
6) PIE *gWer-, 'swallow'; in Egyptian s3b.w, 'meals, food'; Sumerian har,
'chew'
7) PIE *gWer-, 'heavy'; Egyptian s3.w, 'weight';
8) PIE *kWel-, 'move around'; Egyptian snj, 'encircle';
9) PIE *kWer-, 'formulate, put into effect'; Egyptian s3, 'ordain, order';
ser-3, 'decide'
10) PIE *kWe-, interrogative; Egyptian in j-s-z.t, 'what?' (literally,
?-what-it); Sumerian ha, 'quantity';
***
>
> But do not most PIEists still think that Old Indian palatal stops
are
> brought about by *e-grade forms?
There was palatalization of inherited velars (some of which are from
older labiovelars) in pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian before *e, *i, *y. The
already-existing old palatals were not affected.
Jens
***
Patrick:
Not trying to be picky, but am I correct in assuming that you believe there
were a group of palatalized dorsals inherited from pre-PIE, the
palatalization of which was maintained through the presumed one-vowel stage
preceding the Ablaut stage? If this is your understanding, we would be in
complete agreement.