Sorry it took so long to reply.
--- david_russell_watson <
liberty@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos"
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
> > gW palatalized g
> You mean 'labialized' here, of course.
Yes, I cut and pasted many sections to save time and
forgot to edit that part.
> > n^ palatalized n
> The only place you use 'n^' in your demonstration
> though,
> is in 'dln^gho-', where it seems that it could
> represent
> nothing else besides a syllabic 'n', or else a velar
> nasal,
> for the latter which however you claim to be using
> 'N'.
> You don't really intend 'n^' to represent a
> palatal(-ized)
> nasal in 'dln^gho-', do you?
Yes, l is syllabic (I didn't want to write l. since
I was using that for retroflex). I have PIE
dol-n^-gho- with zero dln^-gho- to explain:
dol-n^-gho- > dolikho- Greek
dol-n^-gho- > dlon^-gho- > longus Lat.
dln^-gho- > dl:-gho- > d@:r-gho- > di:r-gha- Sans.
dln^-gho- > drn-gho > darn-go- > da-r@-ga- Av.
dln^-gho- > drn-gho > drung Khowar
dln^-gho- > dl:-gho- > dl-go- > dlUgU- OCS
If it were N not n^ then there'd be no rN > r: in
Sans. since syl. r or l only lengthens if the nasal
has a different place of articulation from the
following C (as rNga- horn). In Greek syl. n > a but
I think n^ > i.
There must be a nasal there instead of a "laryngeal"
since no H becomes Greek i; only a nasal prevents g>G
in that position in Av. (sprH-go- > spa-r@-Ga
bursting, spreading); and there's a nasal in other
languages even in Indo-Iranian (drung).
There's other evidence for the existence of PIE n^
elsewhere (I'll write more later).
> Below you posit several sound changes different from
> those
> of the most widely accepted theory. Do you disagree
> with
> that theory, or are you merely unaware of it?
I've studied standard theories and disagree in part.
> > In Proto-Indo-Iranian Dialects:
> >
> > H drops at end of syllable and lengthens preceding
> vowel
> >
> > r is (remains) retroflex (r.)
>
> So then you consider Proto-Indo-European *r to have
> been
> retroflex?
Yes.
> > l > l.
> Why was P.I.E. *r retroflex to begin with, but not
> P.I.E. *l?
There's some evidence for this, but it would take a
lot of time to describe it now.
> It was my understanding that the ancient Indian
> grammarians
> listed Sanskrit 'l' with the dental series, not the
> retroflex,
Yes, consonants eventually become non-retroflex
word-finally in Sanskrit (but t.s. > t.s > t.
returning some retro., etc.) and new r and l spread in
the productive dialects (this before d. and d.h > l.
and l.h between V).
> nor is there any evidence from Iranian of a
> retroflex there
> either. What theoretical advantage is gained from
> claiming
> that P.I.E. *l was at first a dental, then became
> retroflex
> in Proto-Indo-Iranian, and then finally
> independently became
> a dental again in both Iranian and Indo-Aryan?
There are retroflex sounds in some Iranian
languages. Also, Khowar has both dental r and l and
retroflex l. and in borrowings of Sanskrit often has
l. for (if I'm right) l. and r.
I think s became retro. after r because r was retro.
Since l also causes retroflexing (plH-no- to Sans.
pu:r-n.a- full) it was also retro. Having the two
retro. also makes it more likely for the many (but not
complete) l > r there. I have other reasons to
believe the retroflexing occurred before any r/l
merger.
For example: *lels- "desire" > Sans. las.- so the
retroflexing probably happened before dissimilation.
Also, I have the change l > L (velar) before x in
the next syllable (I believe x = H2) and syllabic L >
uL as in tul- "lift" from tlx-. In the rule list I've
made this also must come after retroflexing.
This velarizing is also seen in evidence from
Iranian with L merging with N. Later N > n in Old
Persian (tunuvant- "strong, having power").
Similarly seen in Avestan new analogical gen. suxáls
"sun's"
suxáls
suáls
xuálx
xwálx
xwáLx
xWáLx
xWáLh
xW@...
xW@:L
xW@:N
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com