glen gordon wrote:
> Again, I was simply noticing that you are not
> addressing my arguements.
I hope it is true that we just cannot understand our points and it is the
source of the whole affair.
> Is it rude to grow tired of
> repeating the facts that someone wishes to arrogantly
> dismiss because he feels he knows better than
> linguistics itself?
You see... I am not a professional linguist (yes, yes...) but I just know
that there is not one generally accepted view on the problems we discuss.
So, why do you feel I feel I know better than linguistics? I just share one
opinion, and you share another.
>> And who do you think I am? Your subordinate?
>
> No, an equal, as I am to you. You will not be put
> on a pedestal
Oh, imagine that I am thinking similarly towards you :-).
> and I will confront things that you
> say that I know to be incorrect.
Really, I think that any rudeness is not needed to anybody, and, say, I have
not time for such problems
>> Starting from now, I will ignore you, [...]
>
> It's inconsequential to me. Again, you will not be
> put on a pedestal and if you find debate too
> stressful, it may well be the best thing for you to
> do.
You say debate? So, if you want it to be debate, not a rude quarrel, then
OK.
> However, please don't simplistically confuse me for
> Ryan. We have very different views of things and I
> very much side with conservatism. I have a distain
> for amateurish reconstructions of Proto-World. I
> will also confront him on any falsehoods without
> shame or fear.
> = gLeN
I did not mean the views of your both. In fact, I see the difference very
well, and I respect your views - I cite them on my pages
(
http://www.aries.com.pl/grzegorzj/gram/isoen/afil.html - by the way, I took
a diagram from an old your site because I was not able to contact you and I
hoped you would have no claims - tell me if you have).
But that is of no consequence. Let's set our discussion in order. As I
understand, you believe that IE *k was *q because it colorized the following
vowel *e > *a. But I raise some questions - basing not only on my personal
view but also on views of some linguists. I hope you know that my
reservation are shared by many linguists - so do not speak that I know
anything better than linguistics itself. Or maybe you do not know about such
reservations and I should cite from sources? Have you heard about linguists
who deny the presence of /a/ in IE? And about those who deny the presence of
neutral velars /k g gh/? Do you think they are arrogant or just stupid?
Do you know their arguments? And can you say that they also dismiss facts
arrogantly? Of course, if plain velars did not exist, they could not
colourize vowels...
You claim that each language have to have vowels of different height. I
do not agree with this, and I would like you to rely on examples rather than
on language universals. It is so because both I and some linguists believe
there are no universals in languages at all. For example, the belief that
the system t - d - dh is forbidden was one the reasons to formulate the
glottalic theory. But such a system was found which removed that belief. The
same about the view that languages can be either nominative/accusative or
ergative/absolutive - you had to hear about tripartite languages, didn't
you? I am sure you know about other language universals which are not
without exceptions either. Of course, we should talk about tendencies - but
not about writs and bans. That is why the t - d - dh languages are _almost_
absent, and that is why tripartite languages almost impossible. This
"almost" makes the difference however. And do you still think that I reject
the argument that "each languages must have minimum two vowels which differ
in height"? Of course, IE may have had the phoneme /a/ but it also may _not
have_ had it, just like Late Common Slavic ca. 800 AD (and probably OCS).
Notice also that IE had the long a: and the same about LCS and OCS - but we
are not talking about long vowels. In other words: perhaps PIE had /a/ or
perhaps it had not, but the universal you cite cannot be treated as a
serious argument.
Anyway, here are my questions:
1) What was the difference between IE phonemes /e/ and /a/ - only in
front-back or also in height?
2) What is the basis for assumption that uvular sounds would cause the shift
*e > *a? And if you think /a/ was lower, please explain the mechanism why
uvular sounds should lower the following vowel. Compare your explanation
with the facts from Turkish where we have kæ together with qA -
uvularization causes back character but not lowering.
3) Did only *k change *e into *a? What about *g and *gh - do you know
examples? Notice that _not all_ linguists claim that the neutral velars (or
your uvulars) ever existed. And I am just asking the question whether they
are right or not.
4) Did other consonants change *e into *a? I mean *dak^- 'to bite' (Skr.
daçati, Greek dakno:), *k^ad- 'to fall', *k^am- 'to work hard; to be quiet'
(Skr. aor. açamat, Greek kamno:), *rad- 'cut' (Lat. ra:dere, Skr. radati)
5) Do you think that PIE /a/ was really the phoneme? Can you show examples
of minimal pairs, i.e. for both /e/ and /a/ in the same phonetical
environment?
6) Reconstruction of IE /a/ is based exclusively on Greek and Italo-Celtic
data. How much reliable are they? Do you know instances where we have /a/ in
one language but /o/ or /e/ in another? E.g.
a) Lat. mare < *mari - Old Irish muir < *mori, or
b) Greek tessares, att. tettares, boeot. pettares (e - a), but ion., ark.,
hellen. tesseres (e - e), Hom. pisyres (i - null), Lesb. pessyres (e -
null), Dor. tetores (e - o);
Latin: quattuor (a - o), Osk petora (e - o), OIr cethir (f. cetheoir).
You know, I have written a long article on the origin of the Slavs (only in
Polish, unfortunately). There exist some various opinions on this, and I
favour one of them. But I present also arguments for other views, and I
discuss with those arguments. So, if you know arguments of people who, for
instance, deny the presence of /a/ or of plain velars in IE, and if you can
refute the arguments, then I will even say you are right. And until you
present this, I will say that the existence of IE /a/ and plain velars is
under discussion.
As for now I assume that plain velars were present: 1) in borrowings, 2) in
words which were not satemized for a number of possible reasons, like many
other words in satem languages. I also assume that /a/ was present 1) in
borrowings, 2) after *H2, 3) perhaps before *H2 (it is a subject for another
discussion), 4) as a result of reduction of /e/, /o/, or other secondary
processes, especially in Latin. Namely, roots of the structure CVC (V = e /
o) could not yield just CC when unstressed but CiC or CuC in
Proto-Balto-Slavic and CaC in Latin and Greek. Full reduction was possible
only in some special cases like when with augment.
I also assume that some "vocalized" laryngeals (schwas) are incorrectly
interpreted as PIE /a/ because the only evidence for laryngeal is -i- in IIr
but it may have been replaced with -a- by analogy in some instances.
And please, do not tell my about arogancy - but I have not discovered
America, such views are presented by others as well.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com