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:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Sean Whalen" <stlatos@...>
> >
> > > > --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I can see no "individualizing" component in
> the
> > > > > -*nt- suffix.
> > > > >


> > 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.

Yes, they assert that sounds occasionally nasalize
randomly but that doesn't make sense to me.

The present nasal infix was n^ and in Sanskrit n^X

> n^: > n^i: > ni: unlike n: > a:

In Albanian n^>y between V's and dn^ > n^n^ >
nj.

Other syl. n^ > i in Greek and Indo-Iranian such
as:

dol-n^-gho- with zero d_ln^-gho- to explain:

dol-n^-gho- > dolikho- Greek
dol-n^-gho- > dlon^-gho- > longus Lat.
dol-n^-gho- > dlon^-gho- > langaz Germ.
dln^-gho- > dl:-gho- > d@:l-gho- > di:r-gha-
dln^-gho- > drn-gho > darn-go- > da-r@-ga- Av.
dln^-gho- > drn-gho > drung Khowar
dln^-gho- > dl:-gho- > dl-go- > dlUgU- OCS

If it were N not n^ then there'd be no rN > r: in
Sanskrit since syl. r or l only lengthens if the nasal
has a different place of articulation from the
following C (see SrNga- horn or Av. nrns^ men (acc)).

In Greek syl. n > a but n^ > i.

There must be a nasal there instead of a "laryngeal"
since no H becomes Greek i; only a nasal prevents g>G
in that position in Av. (sprH-go- > spa-r@-Ga
bursting, spreading); and there's a nasal in other
forms even in Indo-Iranian (drung).

> > Again, I think there were at least several
> affixes
> > containing *t.

> Why do you not just spell out what you mean?
>
> I know of only one. But I am willing to learn.

I just mean there are suffixes containing t like
-èto- -tó- -t- -t (3rd pl) -nt- that aren't
necessarily related.

> > 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.

I gave examples below.

> > Here's part of my earlier message about Khowar.
> > Since kk^ becomes kk (accounting for the
> difference
> > between "horn" and "hornless")

> Where is any *kk^ in horn???

Not horn, hornless (< eks+) in the table below my
explanation starting:

dr_n^ghó- k^r_Ngó- eksk^r_Ngó-
druNg sruNg or suruNg l.uNg

> And what is Khowar?

Khowar = Khow War (Khow Language) with war from
*werdhom spoken in the Chitral Valley in Afghanistan.

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

Which cognate are you talking about? Khowar is
already established as an IE language in standard
theory. There are many more cognates (some included
in my earlier message) as well as many borrowings from
Prakrit and Iranian languages at different times. The
original non-borrowed words can be determined by their
similarity to neighboring Kalasha and Nuristani
languages.





__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com