From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42081
Date: 2005-11-12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] IIr 2nd Palatalisation (was: PIE voiceless aspirates)
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
Patrick:
First, there is nothing but imaginative thinking to connect ca:Sa to
*kel-(so-). It is of questionable value to prove anything. In addition,
every one of the other nine Old Indian derivations of this *kel-
have <k>
(<kalká>). Nine *o- or zero-grades?
Richard:
Look to Iranian for the e-grades:
"npers. c^arma, kurd. c^erme `weis|' (: schweiz. helm)"
Patrick:
But how do you reconcile that with Avestan <kasu-> from (supposedly)
*k^ak-?
Richard:
We're talking about root #823 on p521. The other satem cognate given
is given as Lithuanian _nukas^e`ti_ 'ganz entkräftet werden'. I think
*k^ak is a typo for *kak^.
***
Patrick (new):
I would not be a bit surprised if you were right. I am going to treat it as
such and emend my copy of Pokorny.
I must confess that I have nearly no reference material here on Avestan (or
even, some kind of Proto-Satem) so I am totally dependent on your
information.
So help me learn here.
But in this case, I am convinced that Pokorny's 4. *kel- really contains two
unrelated roots: *kel-, 'reddish' (parallel to 4. *ker-); and **k^el-,
'grayish' (parallel to 6. k^er-). The MPers form *c^arma, 'mold', could as
easily relate to *k^er- as to **kel- (better **k^el-).
***
Patrick:
PIE roots are *CVC. Thus the root for cRtáti is *ker-; this is
acknowledged
(almost) by Pokorny when he refers to 3. *(s)ker- under the *kert-
listing.
In view of an attested kRNátti under this root, I suggest a
prototype for
cRtáti would probably be better reconstructed as *skRtéti.
Richard:
Except that unsoftened PIE *sk gives Sanskrit /sk/ (or /k/) e.g. the
derivatives of PIE *ska(m)bH (e.g. skabhna:ti, skabhno:ti 'support')
and softened *sk gives Sanskrit /ch/ e.g. _chyati_ 'cut' from
Pokorny's *ske:i.
Patrick:
Yes, of course. Here we see <ch>; but what about <códati> from *(s)keud-?
Richard (new):
<códati> happily derives from *keud-. Even in cases without
softening, the s mobile is frequently missing.
***
Patrick (new):
Of course, I should have written *sk^Rtéti as the source of cRtáti.
As for the difference between <c> and <ch>, I am as nearly positive as one
can be in these matters that *ske:i- should be emended to **sk(h)o:i-. Here,
the long vowel is caused by the absorption of the aspiration from *k(h),
which is always associated with 'cutting'. *k^(h), on the other hand, is
always associated with 'speed, running'. I think we see the form without
s-mobile in Pokorny's *k^o:(i)-. It looks to me as if an earlier *k(h)o[:]y-
has become *kyo- then *k^o- through metathesis while some derivatives
maintained *kyo-.
***
Patrick:
I do not think cópati can be very probative in view of kúpyati and
kopáyati
from this root. Perhaps we are dealing with *skéupeti.
Richard:
The combination of cópati, kúpyati and kopáyati looks like a lovely
example of the e-grade, zero grade and o-grade of **keup. It's
partly spoilt by the apparent parallel existence of **kap.
(Discussion of **kap moved to after discussion of **keup.)
***
Patrick (new):
I do not think **kap- is derived from this root.
I know this will not be satisfactory for you but I am beginning to suspect
that cópati
may be derived from a root of the form *kWéupeti or *kwéupeti.
I think we can both agree that *kew6p- is a highly unusual root form, and
the reflexes are more than a little confusing.
***
***
Patrick:
We do have <kópa->, which is as likely to have been an *e-grade as an
*o-grade. Would you agree?
Richard:
No. The simple thematic verb from **keup is PIE **kéupeti, which
happily yields _cópati_. In the thematic present, e-grade is much,
much commoner than o-grade. Conversely, the *moneye-ti type
derivative (one of the Rasmussen infix forms) is also a common verbal
stem, which in this case would yield *koupeyeti, whence _kopáyati_.
***
Patrick (new):
Pokorny's <kópa-> is not a verbal form, is it?
***
Patrick:
If we say it is <k> because of *o-grade, we are
chasing our tails around the tree.
Richard: (new)
No, though we might have to take a probabilistic approach. Is there a
*meneye-ti derivative stem?
***
Patrick (new):
No, I certainly would not assert that.
***
Patrick:
As we see, OI <c> can, apparently, also be a response to PIE *ske- (I
would
say *sk^V). I am beginning to wonder if <ch> does not tell us that the
PIE
form should be *sk^(h)-?
Richard:
Sticking to the notation of the 3 PIE dorsals being *k^, *k and *kW to
avoid utter confusion, Pokorny's PIE *sk^ might reflect two sets of
originals - in Sanskrit. Pokorny (IEW) implies reflexes as /ç/ (it may
be old fashioned, but its nice, reliable Latin-1) and as /ch/.
***
Patrick (new):
I am afraid I cannot comply. The reason I got into the discussion was over
the existence/non-existence of voiceless aspirates, only secondarily over
the reputed Second Palatalization: I reconstruct *k^, *k^(h) *k, *k(h), and
*kW (with possible *k^W).
At this point, my working hypothesis is *k = <k>; *k^ = <ç>; *sk = <sk>;
*sk(h) = <skh>; *sk^ = <c> and *sk^(h) = <ch>; *kW = <k> (zero-grade); *kW =
<c>.
***
Richard:
How does the Sanskrit _kap_ root arise from PIE *kew&p? Wouldn't
*kwep have yielded **kvap?
Patrick:
First, I doubt seriously <*kapi>; it is, after all, "unbelegt".
But in view of Egyptian k(3)p, 'burn incense' (probably better *kjp), I
think Greek kapnós, 'smoke', and OI <kapilá> are more likely to be
derived
from a PIE form like *kaHp- (**ka[:]p-).
Richard:
I don't see any sign of a long vowel /a:/ in Pokorny's example, and
*kHp- would have something like Sanskrit *khip, *kip or possibly a
softened form thereof.
***
Patrick (new):
Well, I cannot say that I agree with much in your last paragraph.
First, I am convinced that PIE *kap- presumes an earlier **ka:p- since I
believe *a was maintained _only_ because it was long, at least originally.
Pre-PIE *a became long, in my opinion, by being followed by either *? or *h
(Egyptian <j> represents *?, *¿, *h, *H, and *y). Is it not possible for
*ka:p- to have the reduced grade *kap-? rather than zero-grade *kHp-? But no
softening before *a???
***
Patrick, can you not standardise your 'quoting' in postings? I do not
enjoy manually editing '>' out (or in) to give a proper indication of
the flow of conversation.
***
Patrick (new):
Is this better?
***
Richard.
Sorry to take so long to answer. I just got the book _Scorpion's Gate_ and
could not put it down.
Patrick