Re: [tied] n/r (was: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with')

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Whalen" <stlatos@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] n/r (was: PIE suffix *-ro - 'similar-with')


>
>
> --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sean Whalen" <stlatos@...>
>
> > > --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can see no "individualizing" component in the
> > > > -*nt- suffix.
> > > >
> > > > What shocked me, after I had been regarding -*n
> > as
> > > > an individualizing suffix
> > > > for many years, was the necessity of recognizing
> > and
> > > > reconstructing a
> > > > second -*n as a collective - and believe me,
> > folks,
> > > > I fought hard against
> > > > making this assignment.
> > >
> > > If you're talking about something like *wedn/r-
> > vs.
> > > *itn/r- (water vs. a way) my explanation is
>
> > The short answer, Sean, is no - this is not what I
> > mean.
> >
> > But more completely:
> >
> > I think everyone would agree to reconstruct an
> > 'individualizing' meaning
> > for -*n.
> >
> > But, although a 'collective' for -*n is rare, is
> > there any real alternative
> > but to reconstruct such a meaning for *ne-, 'we'?
>
> Just because one suffix *-n has a certain meaning
> doesn't mean every one is the same or has the same
> origin. In fact evidence from Albanian (for example)
> shows that there were more nasals in PIE that usually
> denasalized by a V or sonorant C in other languages.

***
Patrick:

I do not know of _anyone_ who has asserted that.

I have been reconstructing a PIE *ng and *nk for some thirty years so I
cannot disagree. It took me ten years to convince Bomhard to reconstruct a
velar nasal for his flavor of Nostratic; and he never has accepted *nk.

***


> > In what I have seen so far, I cannot justify a
> > meaning of 'complete, all' to
> > be attached to -*t. What seems to be implicit there
> > is 'habituality',
> > leading to an implication of 'futurity'.
>
> Again, I think there were at least several affixes
> containing *t.
>
> > I cannot really follow the rest of what you write
> > here. If you wish to
> > pursue it, could you spell it out a little more
> > expansively?


***
Patrick:


Why do you not just spell out what you mean?

I know of only one. But I am willing to learn.

***

> Just that H1/2/3 take part in the same sound
> changes that velar stops do in some languages so
> they're likely velar fricatives.

***
Patrick:

Utterly untrue; and if you think so, demonstrate it with examples.

Secondly *H (1/2/3) was probably a laryngeal fricative rather than a dorsal
one (your velar).

And Hittite shows that /?/ should also reconstructed. There is PIE *H
(probably /h/) and *h though more in earlier stages. But that is a no-no for
Cybalist.

***

> Here's part of my earlier message about Khowar.
> Since kk^ becomes kk (accounting for the difference
> between "horn" and "hornless") the same change can
> account for "I" *eghx^óm > aham in Sanskrit vs. awa in
> Khowar instead of **ozo (Khowar g^>j>z but g>G>w
> between V's and a>o except velar (including labiovelar
> w)). Sanskrit has x^ and xW spread their feature to a
> touching velar before kk^ > kk unlike Khowar.

***
Patrick:

Where is any *kk^ in horn???

And what is Khowar?

***

<snip>

***
Patrick:

XXology: anything can become anything when a cognate is desired.

Sorry, I do not think any of what you wrote above has any chance of being
true.

***

> They also take part in some sound changes that
> velar fricatives would likely undergo. Even though s
> was more sonorant than any "laryngeal" candidate it
> never became syllabic; the position of x^/x/xW by
> e/a/o made them their consonantal equivalent as y/w to
> i/u and r to _r etc.
>
> In Latin and Indo-Iranian I think it makes sense
> for l>L (velar) in some environments and x causes this
> as well as k.
>
> k_lxwó- w_lkó- t_lxyó- w_lxnáx-
> k_Lxwó- w_Lkó- t_Lxyó- w_Lxnáx-
> k_L(:)wó- w_Lkó- t_Lyó- w_L:ná:-
> k_L(:)wá- w_Lká- t_Lyá- w_L:ná:-
> k_L(:)wá- w_Lká- t_Lyá- w_'L:na:-
> ku(:)Lwá- wuLká- tuLyá- wú:Lna:-
> ku(:)lwá- wulká- tulyá- wú:lna:-
> ku(:)lwá- ulká- tulyá- ú:lna:-
> ku(:)lwá- ulká- tulyá- ú:rna:-
> ku(:)lwá- ulká- tulyá- ú:rn.a:-
> ku(:)lvá- ulká- tulyá- ú:rn.a:-
>
> bald spark equal wool
>
> equal < tula:- "balance" < tul- "lift, weigh" as Latin
> tollere < t_lx-
>
> l>L before velar
>
> X > 0 and lengthens syl.-finally
> (ku(:)lvá- has optional syllabification x-w)
>
> e/o>a
>
> accent moves to w_L (and some similar)
>
> syllabic L(:) > u(:)L
> L>l
> w>0 before u word-initially
> l>r before dental
> n>n. after r
>
> In Greek there are dissimilations by velar (so H is
> velar):
>
> X > x^ before y in same syl.
> x^ > ç before glide in same syl.
> x^i > i
> ix^ > i:
> X > syllabic before w word-initially
> xW > x before w
> ix > ia after obstruent + sonorant
> ix > yax
> ixW > yoxW
> úx > wáx between V's
> x > 0 before k
> x > 0 after a word-finally
> X > 0 and lengthens syl.-finally
> çy > jy > dZ > dz/zd

***
Patrick:

More exercises for people who love to concoct "rules" - no doubt, fun, but
simply not proven or provable.


>
> There are also many possible alternations between H
> and k etc. and some rules in various languages where
> it makes sense or is easier in rules if H is velar
> (not much evidence by themselves but piling up to this
> conclusion in my opinion).


***
Patrick:

What alternations?

***