From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 41953
Date: 2005-11-09
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard, I am sorry but I still do not see it.
> >
> > PIE *kw regularly produces OI <c>;
>
> Absolutely not. SOME instances of PIE *kW resulted in
> Sanskrit 'k', but others resulted instead in Sanskrit
> 'c', wherever a front vowel or *y originally followed.
***
Patrick:
How would you explain cá:yati from *kWei-(t-)?
You think the <a:> represents *e:?
***
> > PIE *k produces OI <k>; PIE *k^ produces OI <S>.
>
> No, not ALL instances of Sanskrit 'k' came from PIE *k,
> as some came instead from PIE *kW, and neither did all
> instances of PIE *k result in a Sanskrit 'k', as some
> resulted instead in Sanskrit 'c', wherever a front vowel
> or *y originally followed.
***
Patrick:
I did not write all instances of Old Indian <k> come from PIE *k.
Give me an example of PIE *k becomes Old Indian <c>.
***
> > Are you suggesting that PIE *k/*kw/*k^ were conflated into
> > satem *k, and then subsequently differentiated?
>
> No. Only PIE *k and *kW conflated in a Satem *k, or at
> least a pre-Indo-Iranian branch of Satem, from which
> later either a Sanskrit 'k' or a Sanskrit 'c' resulted,
> depending upon whether a front vowel or *y followed or
> not.
***
Patrick:
Then what, in your theory, is the result of PIE *k^ in satem?
***
<snip>
> How dare you! My honesty is impeccable, and I falsely
> characterized nothing; place the blame upon your own
> inability to comprehend what you read, where it truly
> belongs.
***
Patrick:
You have never explained where Old Indian <S> comes from, have you?
I asked you above to produce an Old Indian <c> from PIE *k. That is what I
was asking you before and you failed to respond. Will you fail to respond
again?
***
> > His formulation is the result of self-uncritical inbred dogma
> > that persists even in spite of the abundant evidence to the
> > contrary. When you learn IE linguistics, you learn such dogma,
> > and, evidently, are taught to never question it.
>
> Well at last, if only tacitly, you acknowledge that I
> at least have actually studied I.E. linguistics before
> attempting to comment on it, whereas you clearly have
> not.
***
Patrick:
Insults from you are not substitute for data. Produce it or shut up.
***
> Don't ever accuse me of dishonesty again, I'm warning
> you sir.
>
> David
***
Patrick:
I am trembling in my house-slippers.
***