From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41898
Date: 2005-11-08
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: PIE voiceless aspirates
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Then you have just admitted that there is no proof possible
> > that it was ever divided differently.
>
> There's no direct evidence for the weight of each
> syllable of _any_ reconstructed form, I surely admit
> that, but I do not admit that there's no evidence
> of it being _divided_ into a different number of
> phonemes, evidence for which there most surely is.
>
> > Well, in a few words of your own, what is this evidence?
> > Regardless of what Lehmann and Burrow have written, you
> > have agreed so to what did you agree?
>
> Well just to start off, how do you explain the failure
> of your supposed *kH to produce a palatalized counter-
> part after the second palatalization?
>
> If it was as most nowadays believe, then a laryngeal
> stood between *k and the following front vowel and
> so naturally blocked the latter's palatalizing effect.
> If on the other hand it was a you say, and *kH was
> a unit phoneme, then we should expected it to have
> produced a palatalized counterpart to k at the time
> of the second palatalization.
***
Patrick:
pPIE *kxi became PIE *k^hV; pPIE *kxa became PIE *khV; pPIE *kxu became PIE
*khV.
So far as I can see, there could be no _second_ palatalization because, in
Old Indian, all *V had become <a>, which could not palatalize. Of course,
*kh newly brought into contact with *y could palatalize.
I think you mean "if *kH was a unit phoneme, then we should have expected it
to have produced a palatalized counterpart to _*kh_..."
Also, if <kh> was really /k/ + /x/, palatalization, if it had occurred,
would easily have produced /k/ + /รง/, which I use when I pronounce <cute>.
***
> Now do not try to claim Sanskrit ch as the palatalized
> counterpart of Sanskrit kh, because ch is a geminate
> (cch), whether always written as such or not, and came
> from PIE *sk.
***
Patrick:
Fine. PIE *k^he becames <S> in Old Indian.
***
> For this reason Sanskrit kh cannot have been a unit
> phoneme before the time of the second palatalization.
***
Patrick:
No second palatalization.
***
> > Are you saying, contrary to what I thought you were saying, that
> > PIE had voiceless aspirates that were not the result of voiceless
> > stop + laryngeal?
>
> No, I'm merely saying that the digression on syllable
> weight and the nature of affricates was not intended
> as proof, as I thought that I already stated.
***
Patrick:
Then it is so much empty theory that contributes nothing to the resolution
of the question.
***
> > > You insist that the antecedents of the voiceless aspirates
> > > of Indo-Aryan were in P.I.E. each a unit phoneme, while I and
> > > most others say that they were each a sequence of phonemes,
> > > two.
> >
> > How can you possibly reconcile that statement with what you wrote
> > above?
> >
> > > None of my elaboration on syllable division or the nature of
> > > affricates was intended itself to strengthen the case against
> > > P.I.E. having a series voiceless aspirates as independent
> > > phonemes."
>
> Quite easily: the fact that (1) VOICELESS ASPIRATES
> AROSE OUT OF COMBINATIONS IN PIE OF STOP + LARYNGEAL,
> leads logically to the conclusion, based upon what
> is known of PIE metrics, that (2) A VOWEL PRECEDING
> SUCH A CLUSTER WAS ORIGINALLY LONG BY POSITION, as a
> vowel preceding _any_ two consonants is supposed to
> have been.
***
Patrick:
So what? No bearing on the question.
***
> You have misunderstood me as offering (2) as proof
> of (1), while I have never been doing anything but
> offering (1) as proof of (2), and so there's nothing
> at all to reconcile.
***
Patrick:
Excuse me but #1 is no proof of #2; it is not even relevant.
***
> I will now say still again: for evidence of (1), READ
> THE BOOK.
>
> > It seems you want to _have_ your cake and _eat_ it, too.
>
> No, you're simply failing to grasp the relationship
> between various components of the discussion and
> to keep them in proper order. The digression on
> affricates was moreover prompted by your own mention
> of affricates, not mine, and so hardly anything for
> which _I_ should have to apologize.
>
> David
***
Patrick:
If the best you can offer is your "proof" from a second palatalization, then
no good proof exists.
If your references had anything worthwhile to contribute, you would already
have quoted it.
***