Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodziński" <grzegorj2000@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] *kW- "?"



<snip>

> Quandrangular systems are much less popular than triangular, so the
> typological problems remain. And especially, t - th - d - dh _is_ rare (is
> there another one, apart from Indic?). And the system t. - th - t: - d is
> also little spread (some Caucassian lgs; t. = abruptive = ejective).

***
Patrick:

So now PIE reconstruction should be the result of a popularity contest.
Where do we vote?

***

> Triangulars systems of t - d - dh are rare hovever possible (Kelabit).
> Nostratic material, and especially Uralic reconstruction, gives support
> for
> _a_ triangular system in IDE.
>
> And if you want to talk about Egyptian... do you think that the
> Afro-Asiatic
> family is a myth? If it is not, you should not compare e.g. Egyptian with
> English but Indo-European with Afro-Asiatic.

***
Patrick:

I have explained this so many times, I despair. No one has, IMHO, succeeded
in formulating an acceptable reconstruction for AA. Unfortunately, it is
necessary to make direct comparisons with PIE and Egyptian and Arabic.

***

> As for me, the abundant lexical material on EHL (http://ehl.santafe.edu/),
> collected from many languages and with observing the genetic tree of
> languages, is much more convincing than your trial, a little chaotic. Btw.
> according to the EHL material, Egyptian and other AA languages are much
> farther from IE than it was thought in Illich-Svitych's times and
> Afro-Asiatic seems to be a sister rather than daughter group towards to
> Nostratic.

***
Patrick:

Regardless of the degree of separation, they are still comparable. Or do you
deny that?

***

The same springs from other serious approaches like from that of
> Kortland's (see his printed publications, some of them can easily be found
> with Google, e.g. http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf or
> https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/retrieve/2584/344_079.pdf ): IE languages
> are not closely related to AA but to Uralic rather. And even analyses of
> AA
> languages themselves (not Egyptian but Afro-Asiatic as a whole) also lead
> to
> a triangular system (t. - t - d) which can easily be compared with the
> Indo-European one.

***
Patrick:

I do not see a close relationship between Uralic and PIE - rather the
adoption of some PIE features by Uralic speakers. With PIE and AA, I see
common descent.

Whom do you know who reconstructs PAA with *t., *t, and *d?

Ehret, for example, reconstructs *d, *dz, *dl, *t, *ts, *tl', and *t'.

In my reconstruction of PIE, *dh is the heir to pre-PIE *dz; and *th to
pre-PIE *ts.

So, according to me, the pre-PIE lineup was *d, *dz, *t, *ts.

From what I can see from the vantage point of Egyptian and Arabic, PAA would
do well with *d, *dz, *t, and *ts. The emphatics are, I believe, a mere
allophonic variation of these four coronals before *[o].

***




> Of course you are right: the t - th - d - dh system was in use in some IE
> dialects, not only in IIr, but also in Armenian (clear traces of *ph and
> *kh), Greek (where *ph mixed with *bh etc.) and even Slavic (*kh > x). But
> it seems to be obvious that all instances of *th are just from *t +
> laryngeal.
>
> Anyway, it would be interesting to compare your data with those from EHL
> and
> from other sources. I wonder what examples of IE aspirated voiceless would
> one manage to find.
>
> Perhaps the classic model t - d - dh should be little modified, indeed. I
> am
> against the glottal hypothesis in its original shape (the Armenian and
> Germanic consonantisms are closest to the original PIE one - it does not
> sound too probable) but there really seems to be some evidence for glottal
> character of voiced from many IE branches. Perhaps t: - d? - dh
> (Korean-type
> fortis - lenis glottalized - lenis aspirated) would be a better model for
> a
> certain stage (cf. this with Uralic tt - t - d system). Such a model is
> closer to Kortlandt (t: - t? - th) than to G&I (th - t? - d), and still
> close to the classic approach ("dh" aspirated but not "t"). In such or
> another way, I cannot see a place for the fourth element of the system
> (before combinatory changes like tH > th).
>
> Grzegorz J.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>