From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 42634
Date: 2005-12-27
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: "Cybalist" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] h1,h2,h3 in Albanian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] h1,h2,h3 in Albanian
>
>
> > Richard, perhaps this can go out _after_ XMAS.
> >
> > Merry Christmas, by the way. In my effort to respond humorously to
> > "ball-bat swinging mimosa", I went too far. I consider your reaction
> > quite reasonable and tempered.
> >
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Abdullah Konushevci" <akonushevci@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] h1,h2,h3 in Albanian
> >
> >
> > On 12/20/05, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > The root of 'lead, drive'
> > > is *h2ag^-, not *h1ag^-. If it were the latter, it would have no
> > > o-grade
> > > derivatives like Gk. ógmos < *h2og^-mo- (Skt. ájma-).
> >
> >
> > In "The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots' by Calvert
> > Watkins (second edition, page 1) you will find: *ag- (Oldest form
> > *H1ag'-)
> >
> > ***
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Piotr will probably have a different explanation for ógmos but what can
> > it hurt to give you mine?
> >
> > I believe the 'laryngeals' had, but the time of PIE, devolved into
> > simply <?> and <h>.
> >
> > In this particular word, we have <?>, which, I believe, _also_
> > lengthened and hence preserved the quality of the _pre-_Ablaut vowels.
> >
> > In this case, *<?age> became*<?agY-> then *<a:g^-> in, at least, satem
> > dialects.
> >
> > However, lengthened vowels are inherently unstable. As long as the
> > lengthened vowel contributes to semantic differentiation, has a semantic
> > 'load', it will remain. If there was no *<Vg^-> against which it could
> > be contrasted, it was liable to be reduced to simple *<ag^-> which, when
> > all short vowels were reduced to the Ablaut-vowel (*e/*o/*Ø), would join
> > the vast majority becoming in initial stress-accented position <é> hence
> > *<ég->.
> >
> > When the stress-accent was removed from *<é>, it became *<o>, hence
> > *<og^-mé-> when what is normally reconstructed as -*mo was added.
> >
> > At some subsequent time, the stress-accent, which had shifted rightward
> > as new syllables extended a root, was retracted wherever possible to the
> > root-syllable; however the process which had transformed *<é> into *<o>
> > was no longer operational, and we get *<óg^-mo->.
> >
> > The continued existence of *<a:g^-> is some dialects meant that it was
> > available for what speakers might consider useful contrasts; after the
> > retirement of the process through which short vowels became the Ablaut
> > vowel, length in *<a:g^-> became non-functional - long or short, it
> > would remain *<a> to contrast against *<e> and *<o>. It is not at all
> > certain that ancient PIE speakers would have recognized a formal
> > relationship between *<a:g^-> and *<eg^->/*<og^->; and, in my opinion,
> > doubtful.
> >
> > I propose a general linguistic principle: where effort or time bears no
> > functional load, the effort will be reduced if possible. If *<a:>
> > (*<aa>) communicates no more than *<a>, *<aa> will be reduced to *<a>.
> > This is devolution as contrasted with degeneration, as, for example, the
> > reduction of pre-PIE voiceless affricates to voiceless stops: *<ts> ->
> > <*t>, merging with extant *<t> since the voiceless affricates bore a
> > semantic load.
> >
> > I hope this is not too bizarre for you.
> >
> >
> > ***
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <snip>
>