Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

----- Original Message -----

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>

>   Perhaps with stereoscopic glasses "one can actually see this
process" but, provided as I am with only normal eyesight, I cannot see
any connection between argós and r.jrá- other than their both being
formed on the same root. The key to unmasking this charade posing as
an argument is to ask: under what conditions should we expect PIE -ró
to become PIE -*ó?  I am giving 2 to 1 odds this is a question Piotr
will ignore. Any takers?

I have already answered this question, both in the message to which
you've just responded and in another but the message, sent yesterday,
which hasn't yet appeared on Cybalist for reasons only known to Yahoo!
Here is a copy:

********************

On 2006-03-30 20:31, Patrick Ryan wrote:

>     This is, by far, the most objectionable theorization I have seen on
>     this list from Piotr, who is normally much more discriminating in
>     his suggestions.

Every dog must have his day. With so many crazy ideas tossed to and
fro on this forum, why shouldn't I have some fun as well?

 

***

Patrick:

 

Absolutely entitled to your fun as far as I am concerned. And I am certainly not ruling out the possibility that someone's fun may become another person's inspiration.

 

***

>     There is absolutely no proof and not even any persuasive indication
>     that PIE *o _ever_ became PIE *u, under any circumstances: *o does
>     not become *w; and *o does not become *u. This is pure fantasy.

The credit for this theory goes to Olsen and Rasmussen -- I merely
accept their findings. For example, the *-to-/*-tu-/*-ti- hierarchy
has already been discussed and re-discussed on Cybalist. If you want
another rehearsal of the evidence, be my guest, but you can find it
all in the list archives.

***

Patrick:

 

I will look but I place this idea in the same category as the *O-infix. Totally unbelievable!

 

***

>     This is no proof and not even any persuasive indication that PIE
>     -*ró _ever_ was "dissimilated" to -*ó, under any circumstances.
>     Dissimilate to *Ø??? Is that what "dissimilate" means??? Pure
fantasy!

*-ro- losing its *-r- because there is another liquid in the adjacent
syllable is pure fantasy? It's called dissimilatory loss, like
<library> becoming "lib'ary" or <secretary> "seck'etary". To quote
H.H. Hock (_Principles of Historical Linguistic_, in the section
devoted to dissimilation), "the only process which could be considered
a 'complete' dissimilation is _dissimilatory loss_..."

***

Patrick:

 

There are incompetent "experts" represented in every branch of every study.

 

I invite anyone to Google "dissimilate" and see how much acceptance Hock's pronouncements generally enjoy.

 

Neither of the examples you cited are "dissimilatory loss"; they are stupid, sloppy enunciation not recognized by any competent speaker of English.

 

***
>     PIE -*u/*ú (from -*w) is an affix that is unrelated to -*ó
>     (plurality) or -*ró (high degree); and has a totally different
>     significance: it provides the idea of definite but limited
>     repetition and successfully completed activity so that *kr.t-ú would
>     primarily mean 'empowered, provided with power'.

And who's talking about pure fantasy? Adjectival *-ú- and *-ró- are
absolutely isofunctional.

***

Patrick:

 

Only for someone without Fingerspitzengefühl.

 

***
In case you've forgotten your stereoscopic glasses and can't locate
the answer, let me repeat: *-ú- is found _mostly_ in roots containing
a liquid, such as *gWr.h2-ú- 'heavy', *h1wr.h-ú- 'broad', *bHr.g^H-ú-
'high', *pl.h1-ú- 'numerous', *h3r.g^-ú- 'straight', *mr.g^H-ú-
'short' and while there are exceptions, such as *tn.h2-ú- 'thin,
stretched' and *h1s-ú-/*h1we:s-ú- 'good', I believe the phonological
motivation for the loss of *-r- is rather clearly visible. Some *-ú-
adjectives may be of other origin, but a lot of them just complement
the *-ró- formation.

 

***

Patrick:

 

*r eliminating a following *r over a syllabic boundary? I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge— cheap.

 

The _exceptions_ positively show that the theory is just another "fun" idea.

 

To suggest that "Some *-ú-adjectives may be of other origin" is confirmation that the theory has no validity; otherwise known as a cop-out.

 

***

>   It is pure sophistry to claim that *HléngWH-(i)jos- is the
comparative of "both variants"!

It's a bit embarrassing to have to point it out, but it's a well-known
_fact_ that adjectives in *-ú-, *-ró- share the same comparative (with
the suffix *-jos- and accented e-grade in the root!
 
>   *HléngWH-(i)jos- is the comparative of *HléngWH-os-.

... which doesn't even exist, as far as I know.

***

Patrick:

 

In order for the forms with the suffixes *-ú-/*-ró- to exist, *HléngWH-os- has to have pre-existed, whether attested or not.

 

***