Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formatin of IE subgroups

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

From: Piotr Gasiorowski

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:55 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Convergence in the formatin of IE subgroups

On 2006-05-11 10:05, tgpedersen wrote:

>> [Patrick:] and why *W rather than *w???).
>
> Latin canis. I'd rather believe *kW- > *k- than *kw- > *k-.
> Pulleyblank reconstructs Old Chinese *kÜ- in his attempt to link
> Chinese and IE (but also *kÜw- I think it was).

For Latin, the difference doesn't matter, since *kW and *k(^)w simply
merge there, so the loss of the labial element is problematic either
way. But the Satem branches that have the word (Indo-Iranian, Baltic,
Armenian) unambiguously point to biphonemic *k^w-, and the /ku-/ of Gk.
kúo:n can hardly reflect *kW-.

>> The root on which it is based is obviously **k^eH- (Nostratic **k^A?-
>> ), 'to be a dog" + *-w, 'to wag the tail like a dog'  (PIE *k^eHw-) +
>> *n(A), 'a (tail-)wagger'  >(*k^won-).
>
> That's not obvious to me.
> I was wondering by what kind of principle you have joined the two
> roots?

Me too. Proto-Nostratic must have been a most extraordinary language if
it had verbs like 'to be a dog'.

Piotr

***

Patrick:

 

As far as "extraordinary" is concerned, I am surprised at the parochialism.

 

Moscati (p. 132) in his _The Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages_, writes:

 

"This last type represents in essence the conjugation of a noun and may constitute a verbal adjective (e.g. damiq "he is good", balTâku "I am alive") as well as a substantive (e.g. zikarâku "I am a man", from zikaru "man")."

 

Perhaps this postulated form (*k^A?- [but also possibly *k^Ah-, 'to act like a dog']) would be more acceptable if we termed it "predicative".

 

As far as "obvious" is concerned,  we should acknowledge that, with very few exceptions, PIE roots have the form *CVC so *CCVC (*k^won-) cannot be a root but must represent a root extended by a suffix.

 

PIE *-n is widely employed as a suffix with a nominal singularizing force. In addition, no unextended root has the form *CoC.

 

It is probable to regard at *k^-w as the putative root.

 

In Pokorny, we find *k^e:w-, 'to wag'. There is no other animal on the ancestral horizon that would have been so likely to be characterized as the 'wagger' than the dog. 

 

If *k^won- is directly derived from *k^e:w- as the 'wag(ger [*-n]), we must account for the lengthened vowel, which I hypothesize as deriving from *?A (stative) or *h (behavioral[??]), yielding *k^éHw; but, it is also possible to derive *k^won- from an unpreserved **k^é-w(o)- (color root, 'grayness'[??]; cf. *k^i-wó, 'color').

 

If we reconstruct the 'laryngeal', it seems to explain the vocalism better:

 

*k^éHØ, 'to be/act like a dog'

 

*k^&éwØ, 'to do something repeatedly which is characteristic of a dog, wag' -> *k^é:w-

 

*k^&wénØ, 'wagger'

 

with shift of stress-accent to root syllable, and second stage shift of *é to *o:

 

*k^&'won-

 

and simplification:

 

*k^wón-

 

Unless it be maintained that *k^wón- is borrowed (not likely at all!), it has to have been constructed from an earlier root; and 'wag' seems to me to be a very likely source (though 'gray one' is not unreasonable but unacceptably vague). Words do not spring like Athena from Zeus' forehead.

 

***