--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,"david_russell_watson"
<liberty@...> wrote:
> >
> > You still don't understand that there was a second
> > palatalization, that the evidence _demands_ that
> > there was a second palatalization.
>
> I asked for proof, and all you can do is regurgitate your
> previous assertion. Prove it or withdraw the claim.
Well I would have hoped that it wouldn't be necessary to
prove something that is covered more than adequately in
most of the introductions to I.E. linguistics, but if I
must, I must.
---------------------------------------------------------
*kW before *e, *e: *i, *i:, or *y > Sk. 'c', but in all
other contexts > Sk. 'k':
Sk. ca 'and', Gk. te, Lat. que
Sk. catvá:ras 'four' (<*kWetwo:res) , O. Sl. c^etyre,
Lith keturì, Gk. téssares, Lat. quattuor, BUT Sk. turí:ya-
'fourth' (*kturi:ya- < *kWtur-).
Sk. pánca 'five' (< *penkWe), Lith. penkì, Gk. pénte,
Lat. quinque, BUT pankti- 'a row or set or collection of
five' (< *penkWti-).
Sk. pácati 'cooks' (< *pekWeti), O. Sl. pec^etu, but 1st
sing. peko, BUT Sk. pakva- 'cooked, ripe' (< *pekWwo-)
Sk. cakrá- 'wheel' (*kWekWlos) , A.S. hweohl, cf. Gk.
kúklos, Toch.A. kukäl
---------------------------------------------------------
*gW before *e, *e: *i, *i:, or *y > Sk. 'j', but in all
other contexts > Sk. 'g':
Sk. yuj- 'to join' (< *yugW-), Av. yaoj-, BUT yuktá-
(partic.) (< *yukWto-)
Sk. dáhati 'burns' (< *degWheti), (Av. daz^aiti), BUT
dagdhá- (partic.) (< *degWdho-)
Sk. drúhyati- 'to injure, betray' (< *drughyeti), (Av.
druj-), BUT drugdhá- (partic.) (< *drugWdho-)
---------------------------------------------------------
*gWh before *e, *e: *i, *i:, or *y > Sk. 'h', but in all
other contexts > Sk. 'gh':
Sk. hánti 'slays' (< *gWhenti), Av. jainti, O.Ir. geguin,
Hitt. kuenzi BUT Skt. jaghá:na (< *gWegWho:ne)
Sk. árhati 'is worth' (< *XelgWheti), Av. ar&jaiti, BUT
Skt. arghá- 'price', (< *XelgWho-), Lith. algà 'reward',
Gk. alpháno:
Sk. haras- 'heat' (< *gWheros-), Gk. théros 'summer',
BUT Sk. gharmá- 'heat' (< *gWhormo-).
Sk. dáhati 'burns' (< *degWheti), Av. daz^aiti, BUT Sk.
nida:ghá- 'heat of summer' (< *nide:gWho-), Lith. degù
'I burn'
---------------------------------------------------------
*k (plain velar) before *e, *e: *i, *i:, or *y > Sk. 'c',
but in all other contexts > Sk. 'k':
Sk. krntáti 'cuts' (< *krnteti), Gk. keíro:, BUT Sk.
cakárta (perf.) (< *kekorte)
Sk. krnátti 'spins', twists thread' (< *kernetti), cf.
Gk. kártalos 'basket', Lat. cra:tis ', BUT Sk. ca:ttra-
'spindle' (< *kert-tro-)
Sk. rócati 'shines' (< *lewketi), Gk. leukos 'clear,
white', Lat. lux, 'light', BUT Sk. roka- 'light , lustre ,
brightness' (< *lewko-)
---------------------------------------------------------
*g (plain velar) before *e, *e: *i, *i:, or *y > Sk. 'j',
but in all other contexts > Sk. 'g':
Sk. tejate 'is sharp, becomes sharp' (< *(s)teygetoy),
BUT Sk. titiksate (desider.) (< *ti-tiksetoy), and Sk.
tigmá- 'sharp', Gk. stigmé: 'puncture'
---------------------------------------------------------
*gh (plain velar) before *e, *e: *i, *i:, or *y > Sk. 'h',
but in all other contexts > Sk. 'gh':
I'm not sure about this one:
Sk. meghá- 'cloud' (< *meygho-), Lith. miglà, Gk. omíkhle:,
BUT Sk. mihika- 'fog, mist' (< *mighikWo-)
---------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously, you think you have a monopoly on "facts" and
> "certainty"; so much so that no need for proof ever arises.
> Are you a born-again IEist?
No, but the case for some of these items that you want to
dispute are generally so well known and seldom disputed by
anybody familiar with the arguments. I really think that
it's your job to familiarize yourself with them, not mine
to restate it all piecemeal in e-mail for you.
> I have attempted to prove my theories in mega-bytes on my
> website.
_This_ is not your website, and neither is anybody required
to visit your website or be familiar with its contents before
they dare discuss I.E. topics here. I'm afraid that you do
not have the stature of Lehmann, Burrow, etc. to insist that
we all adjust our thinking to accord with your theories.
> Where and when have you attempted to prove yours?
I have no theories of my own in this area. I'm not such an
egomaniac that I think I know better than the big names in
this field, or even more than most of the smaller names on
this very list.
> > In the first palatalization it was the PALATO-VELARS
> > of P.I.E. that were fronted and affricatized, while
> > in the second palatalization it was the reflexes in
> > Proto-Satem of the PLAIN VELARS and LABIO-VELARS of
> > P.I.E. that were fronted and affricatized, although
> > only those immediately preceding a front vowel or *y.
>
> Prove it! with concrete examples.
See my list above. It's clear that one sound change affected
only the palato-velars and regardless of phonetic context:
all palato-velar stops became affricates. It's also clear
that another sound change affected only the plain velars and
labio-velars, but only when those followed followed by a
front vowel or glide. That amounts to two distinct
"affricatizations", if you object to "palatalization".
> "Palatalization" of "PALATO-VELARS"??????? What in Heaven's
> name is that supposed to mean?????
I didn't come up with the name; it's no more than received
terminology. I suppose that it's more meaningful to those
like Burrow who posited for PIE two velar series only, and
so in whose view the series that we call "palato-velars"
would have originally been plain velars and have had to go
through a palatalization stage to arrive at *k^, g^, and
*g^h before going on to affricatize as well.
For yours and my purposes "palatalization" here should be
taken as referring to no more than "affricatization" and/or
"fronting". For those who posit three velar series for PIE,
the first palatalization is the stage at which *k^, *g^, and
*g^h became the pre-palatal affricates *c´, *j´, and *j´h
respectively.
> Dorsals are commonly EITHER palatal OR velar; they cannot be
> simultaneously both.
They _can_ be both, but that's not what was intended with
the name, as I explained above.
> No plain dorsal became an affricate; *k > <k>; *k^ > <S>; no
> affricate to be seen.
Well I'm sorry, but that is not what the evidence tells us.
Some Sanskrit forms containing 'c' have cognates showing
that they go back to a PIE *k, while others have cognates
showing that they went back to a PIE *kW, and so PIE *k did
indeed sometimes result in a Sanskrit 'c', an affricate.
There aren't many examples of Sanskrit 'c' coming out of
PIE *k (plain velar), it's true, but then there aren't many
examples of 'k' coming out of PIE *k either. There just
aren't many examples of *k... period! Nevertheless, since
there is evidence that PIE *kW and *k merged prior to Proto-
Indo-Iranian, and that PIE *kW when followed by *e, e:, i,
i:, or y resulted in Sanskrit 'c', it's only logical to
assume that PIE *k before *e, e:, i, i:, or y resulted in
Sanskrit 'c' as well. How would Proto-Indo-Iranians know
which of their k's had centuries before been rounded, and
which had not, so as to be able to decide to exempt the
latter from palatalizing before a front vowel or glide?
> True, *kw > <c>, presumably /tS/ is an affricate but that is
> not what you wrote, is it?
I wrote that *kW, when originally before a front vowel or
*y resulted in 'c' in Sanskrit, most certainly. It does
not result in Sanskrit 'c' in any _other_ context, however.
> And why would a "Palato"-anything be fronted:
Why does any language change take place?
> to be alveolar contact point?
Well it surely wouldn't have been fronted to the alveolar
position. The basic positions, from front to back, are
the exo-labial,
the endo-labial,
the dental,
the alveolar,
the post-alveolar,
the pre-palatal,
the palatal,
the velar,
the uvular (or post-velar),
the pharyngeal,
the laryngeal,
and the glottal,
and so the next position in front of [k^], which I assume
to have been a palatal stop, is the prepalatal, and before
that, the post-alveolar, and only before that, the alveolar.
> You write: "PLAIN VELARS and LABIO-VELARS of P.I.E. that were
> fronted and affricatized, although only those immediately
> preceding a front vowel or *y".
>
> This is untrue; while labio-velars were affricated (*kW >
> <c>), plain dorsals remained plain dorsals (*k > *k) unless
> followed by *y; and then, *ky > <S> not *<c> as you state;
Now I'm going to have to ask you for an example.
> do you have a citable example of *ky > <c> or is that also
> so much empty rote?
No, the plain velars are rare enough as it is for the
purpose of finding instances where they preceded _any_
front vowel or glide, much less to give you an example
of every possible combination. My examples above suffice
to show that the plain velars palatalized before a front
vowel.
> > By the time of the second palatalization the affricate
> > series from the first had further fronted and so the
> > two series didn't overlap.
>
> What affricate???
The affricates *c´, j´, and j´h.
> and what was it before and after fronting???
The came from PIE *k^, g^, and g^h respectively.
> Do you ever give examples?
When these things are fairly well known, one would rather
not be put out hunting up and typing examples, but again,
if I must, I must. Here are some examples of the different
outcomes of affricates from the first and second palatal-
izations
From the first palatalization:
Sk. yaj- 'sacrifice', Av. yaz-, is.t.á- (partic.)
Sk. srj- 'to let go', Av. har&z-, sr.s.t.á (partic.)
Sk. mrj- 'to wipe', Av. mar&z-, mr.s.t.á (partic.)
Sk. vah- 'to carry', Av. vaz-, ud.há- (partic.)
Sk. lih- 'to lick', Av. raez-, li:d.há- (partic.)
Sk. sah- 'to overcome', Av. haz-, sa:d.há-/sod.há- (partic.)
From the second palatalization:
Sk. nij- 'to wash', Av. naej-, niktá (partic.)
Sk. bhaj- 'to distribute', Av. baj-, bhaktá- (partic.)
Sk. yuj- 'to join', Av. yaoj-, yuktá- (partic.)
Sk. dah- 'to burn', (Av. daz^aiti), dagdhá- (partic.)
Sk. druh- 'to injure, betray' (Av. druj-), drugdhá- (partic.)
Did you notice how the participles are formed differently?
Think about why that is.
> Just declaiming your theory over and over convinces no one
> (I hope).
Well this is absolutely ridiculous: for you to accuse me
of presenting some strange new theory all of my own and
then not providing evidence for it, when it's not _my_
theory but rather the prevailing theory of the day, and
with which _you_ ought to have properly familiarized
yourself before insisting that your own was better.
It's you, in fact, who are trying to "declaim your theory",
and then insist that _I_ prove it isn't true, rather than
do your own job of proving that it is.
> > Look through your own IE dictionary, and you will see that
> > PIE *k becomes Old Indian <k> and PIE *k^ (including *k^h)
> > becomes Old Indian <S> - not <c> as you so blithely assert.
Hopefully you'll eventually get it into your head that I
never said that. It would take no more than going back and
reading my earlier messages again, afterwhich you couldn't
help but notice that nothing of the sort is in any of them.
> > I never asserted any such thing. I said that *k, not
> > *k^, became Sanskrit 'c' when it originally preceded
> > a front vowel or *y.
>
> Well, it does not! And if you think it does, cite some examples.
Don't demand that until you first acknowledge that I never
said PIE *k^ or *k^h becomes Sanskrit 'c', of which you
accused me several times. Don't demand that until you first
cite some examples of your own, of PIE *k NOT resulting
in Sanskrit 'c' when originally before a front vowel or
glide. Analogical restorations of 'k' won't be accepted,
of course.
> You will not because you cannot.
Well by now you know that I can, and I did.
> > Of course, *kh newly brought into contact with *y could
> > palatalize.
> >
> > One example is *g(y)eu-, BS *Zyauyo:.
>
> That's not an example. *g(y)ew- doesn't contain *kh/*kH.
I'll say again: that's not an example, because *g(y)ew- doesn't
contain *kh or *kH.
Please respond.
> > Dead wrong. I thought you might have understood that the
> > /k/ was also move forward but since you evidently did not,
> > or cannot, then /k'ç/.
>
> In exactly what way am I dead wrong? After correcting
> your notation it's apparent that you were referring to
> essential the SAME THING AS I WAS, so how then can you
> say that I'm dead wrong?
>
> Moreover, do you really believe it appropriate to be
> rude to _me_ for mistaking the intent of notation that
> _you_ didn't make clear?
You've yet to answer/apologize for this one either.
> Damn it! I have never once said that "Sanskrit 'c' comes out
> of P. I. E. *k or *kw".
Ah well, but you did say that it came out of *kW, and
I could never have imagined that anybody didn't know
that *kW had merged with *k prior to Indo-Aryan.
Surely you've heard of the big "Centum/Satem" deal,
have you not? And you argued for three velar series in
PIE a while back yourself, did you not? So just what
do you think underlies the Centum/Satem difference if
not the merging of series 1 and 2 in Centum, and the
merging of series 2 and 3 in Satem? Of course it's
understood nowadays to have been a bit more complicated
than that in places, but I'm only asking that you be
aware of the basic theory, not any of the exemptions
or their details.
If Sanskrit is a Satem language, then clearly the plain
velars and labio-velars merged into one series in a pre-
stage of the language, meaning that *kW merged with *k.
How could they have not, Patrick, and we still have a
Satem language on our hands?
Given that, and your own admission that *kW yielded
Sanskrit 'c' (although you incorrectly claim it as
an unconditional change), then how can you logically
assert that no PIE *k ever yields a Sanskrit 'c'?
> No wonder we make no progress.
Yes, no wonder.
> I have stated that Sanskrit <c> comes from *kW.
>
> PIE *k became Sanskrit *k.
>
> As in kani:na, 'young' from *ken-.
You mean Sk. kani:na-, and no doubt in its meaning
'young, youthful'. However read the rest of your
dictionary entry and you shall find for kani:na-
also 'the pupil of the eye', and 'the little finger',
and so T. Burrow notes that:
"The Aryan root kan- (Sk. kanyà: 'girl', etc.) cannot
be connected with Gk. kainós 'new', because its primary
meaning is quite certainly 'little' and not 'new'."
So 'kani:na-' is not an acceptable counterexample.
> Yes, I can access any file in the File Section I think is
> worthwhile accessing.
Oh well then, if you've the option to look at what
evidence you deign, and turn your nose up at whatever
you deign not, then surely I can never prove anything
to you that you do not want to have proven to you.
Oh but wait, you almost had me pulled into your
delusion alongside you, your delusion that yours is
the prevailing theory and mine the challenger, when
it's just the opposite.
> And I have, more than once, asked you to present the arguments
> in your own words, which, you, again, refuse to do. Because
> there are none there.
Well ask and be damned. I don't by any means consider
myself better informed than Lehmann or Burrow, either
one, and neither do I consider myself even as eloquent
as either one. I've nothing to add or detract from the
arguments made by Lehmann and Burrow, so why should I
have to re-word them for your benefit?
There were put there for your information (requiring no
small effort on my own part!), but if you do not want
to be informed, then that's your problem, not mine.
> So, here is what you are saying (I think?)
>
> PIE *k > pS *k
> PIE *kW > pS *k
> pS *k+e/y > OI <c>
> pS *ka/o > OI <k>
> PIE k^ > pS *S > OI <S>
Not quite. More like this (where C stands for any consonant
besides y):
PIE *k^ > PS *c´
PIE *k > PS *k
PIE *kW > PS *k
(Which changes everybody else considers characteristic of
the Satem group)
then
PS *c´ > PII *c^
PS *k(-a/a:/o/o:/u/u:/l./r./C) > PII <k>
PS *k(-e/e:/i/i:/y) > PII <c´>
then
PII *e and *o merge with *a
(Which last change everybody else considers the finishing
touch on Proto-Indo-Iranian)
then
PII *c^ > OI <>
PII *c´ > OI <c>
PII *k > OI <k>
David