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 8:13 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:
> > > >
> > > > ----- 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.

***
Patrick:

I hope no one on the list presently is asserting that. Quite frankly, I find
it absurd.

***

> 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.

***
Patrick:

First, there is _no_ nasal infix. There is a nasal suffix which, under
certain conditions, undergoes metathesis.

PIE has no infixes!

Is *n^ intended to indicate /ñ/? A mere palatal allophone of /n/?

***


> 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).

***
Patrick:

If you are suggesting phonemic status for /ñ/, I must disagree.

***

> > > 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.

***
Patrick:

So what?

***

>
> > > 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:


***
Patrick:

I am not a mind-reader. Where does kk^ occur?

***


> 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.

***
Patrick:

Perhaps someone more didactically inclined should address this one.

***