Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodziński" <grzegorj2000@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] *kW- "?"


> Patrick Ryan wrote:
> > ----- 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?
>
> But it is you who sees typological problems with t - d - dh. So, you are
> voting and searching for popular reconstructions, not I.

***
Patrick:

Quite wrong. I am simply in favor of retaining the originally theorized
system which was destroyed by the laryngealists.

***


> > Patrick:
> >
> > I have explained this so many times, I despair. No one has, IMHO,
> > succeeded in formulating an acceptable reconstruction for AA.
>
> And what inacceptable have you found among those 2788 reconstructions in
> EHL?

***
Patrick:

What have you found acceptable?

What I have found is that no one seems to like either Ehret's or
Orel-Stolbova's formulations.

***

>
> > Unfortunately, it is necessary to make direct comparisons with PIE
> > and Egyptian and Arabic.
>
> And why Arabic and not Proto-Semitic? Do you think that PS reconstructions
> accessible on EHL and based or some tens of languages are worse than yours
> Arabic comparisons?

***
Patrick:

Because I believe that PS suffers from the same fools as PAA. And yes, I
think they are so bad as to be nearly useless. With Arabic and Egyptian, I
am dealing with real not theoretical quantities. I wish it were not so.

I also use Sumerian. Do you know of a good source for Proto-Sumerian?

***

>
> But enough about Semitic, it is not the right place to discuss about it.
> But
> it is the right place to point out that IE-Arabic or IE-Egyptian
> reconstructions just cannot be correct.

***
Patrick:

You are, yourself, so incorrect.

There is nothing a priori which prevents valid comparisons of PIE and
Arabic/Egyptian. It would just be more desirable to have a good PS or better
yet PAA corpus to utilize.

***

many IE-Semitic similarities are the
> result of mutual influence in the past and not of genetic relations. If
> you
> are curious of a little sample of it, look at my private page
> http://www.aries.com.pl/grzegorzj/lingwen/iesem1.html
> So, in order to find IE-AA links we must first reconstruct AA itself. All
> IE-Arabic comparisons are worth nothing without it.
>


***
Patrick:

You may look at

http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-AFRASIAN-3.htm

If you have criticisms of the items in it, let me know.

***

> > ***
> >
> >> 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?
>
> AA and IE - yes, they are (but Arabic and English - hardly), but only when
> you take closer Nostratic families into consideration in order to avoid
> errors and finding genetic relations where we have borrowings. And of
> course, there is more IE-Altaic correspondences (for example) than IE-AA.
> Haven't you found them yet?

http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-ALTAIC-8.htm



>
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > I do not see a close relationship between Uralic and PIE
>
> How many Uralic examples have you analyzed? From how many Uralic
> languages?


http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-URALIC-7.htm

>
> > - rather the
> > adoption of some PIE features by Uralic speakers. With PIE and AA, I
> > see common descent.
>
> How many lexical units have you analysed? More than in EHL project? And
> how
> many languages? More than they have analysed?
>
> > Whom do you know who reconstructs PAA with *t., *t, and *d?
>
> And have you looked at EHL or not? Just do it and you'll learn names.
>
> > Ehret, for example, reconstructs *d, *dz, *dl, *t, *ts, *tl', and *t'.
>
> Oh no, you should write: d, t and t' - so you have the answer. You simply
> mix dental stops with dental affricates and even other sounds.
>
> > In my reconstruction of PIE, *dh is the heir to pre-PIE *dz; and *th
> > to pre-PIE *ts.
>
> But there were not *th in PIE, it is commonly known.

***
Patrick:

Yes, it is so obvious that the founders of IE studies were fools to
reconstruct.

***

So you should first
> prove that it was. Write your own IE etymological dictionary and prove the
> existence of th, and especially that your examples are not just *tH = stop
> +
> laryngeal. How many examples and from how many languages have you analyzed
> to prove the existence of *th _different_ from *tH?
>
> > 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].
>
> Yes, I know your hypotheses but I do not think they are reliable, for some
> reasons. Have you ever compared the state in Semitic with Kushitic and
> Chadic where emphatics or glottalic are present as well? Have you ever
> compared PIE with Kartvelian which has preserved the triangular system of
> stops and affricates? Have you found three rows of stops in Altaic and in
> Uralic?
>
> The etymologic dictionary of Altaic languages
> (http://ehl.santafe.edu/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=/data/alt/altet&first=1)
> has 2804 entries and it is based on many languages. How many Altaic
> languages have you analysed and how many words? And if your opinion is
> other
> than the opinion of EHL, why should I believe you and not them?
>
> And summing it up... what is your basis for reconstructing IE *th and why
> should the basis be more reliable than e.g. the basis of EHL?
>
> Grzegorz J.
>
***
Patrick:

I have published the answer to that many times on this list.

PIE *dh and *th are Egyptian '/D; PIE *d and *t are Egyptian d/t.

***
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>