--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel J. Milton" <dmilt1896@...>
wrote:
>
> We've been treated to a long thread with the above subject,
the
> root of which is Torsten's posting reproduced below. The most
recent
> posting show's Torsten's answer to his own question "Is 'allofamy'
a
> term cybalist should consider using for PIE?" is "Yes".
> I've checked every Google citation of "allofam" and "allofamy"
> and am still thoroughly confused, but I have a suspicion that the
> unknown author has oversimplified a concept that may only apply to
> Sino-Tibetan languages.
> Has anyone here read (or have access to and would read)
Matisoff
> himself and tell us what allofamy really means?
Actually, his 'Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman' is online
http://tinyurl.com/h48qf
Here are some of his definitions
"
A <> B : A and B are members of the same word family; A and B are co-
allofams of a single etymon. Indicates major or minor interlingual
variation, or major intralingual variation. Cp. "~".
A ?<>? : B Are A and B allofamically related?; Do A and B belong to
the same word-family?
A * B : A and B are not co-allofams.
A ~ B : Indicates minor intralingual variation between A and B.
"
Note that no intrinsically Sino-Tibetan concept is referred to.
But note
"
In sharp contrast to Indo-European, the manner of initial consonants
(voicing and aspiration) in TB/ST is highly variable, due to the
pervasive phenomenon of prefixation.
"
Background information, ibd.:
"
After the publication of the Conspectus, further progress in intra-
TB and TB/Chinese comparison seemed to depend on multiplying the
number of reliably reconstructed etyma, as well as systematizing and
refining the methodological underpinnings of the reconstructions. In
the mid-1970's, when I was attempting to apply the principles of
glottochronology in order to subgroup the TB family, the very first
item of "basic vocabulary" that I looked at happened to be `belly /
stomach'. Much to my initial dismay, I quickly found that it was
futile to use a simple wordlist to try to subgroup a family as
complex and ramified as TB. In fact it was impossible even to deal
in isolation with a single point in semantic space; etyma with the
meaning `belly' or `stomach' spilled over into concepts like `cave /
hole', `swelling', `calf of leg', `liver', `guts', etc. I became
preoccupied with notions of semantic variability, semantic fields,
and the field of bodypart nomenclature in particular. At the same
time I could not help noticing the morphophonemic variations
displayed by almost every etymon previously or newly reconstructed.
Instead of guiltily sweeping these variational phenomena under the
rug, I began to revel in them. In Variational Semantics in Tibeto-
Burman(1978) I set out to establish an explicit methodology for
handling phonosemantic variation in word families, introducing the
notion of allofams and a notation for diagramming patterns of
semantic association ("metastatic flowcharts").
"
I've taken the Proto-Tibeto-Burman forms mostly from the Index I,
beginning at p. 577.
But search for yourself, all!
Are there possible candidates for the status of co-allofams in
classical PIE.
Yes, I think so:
*akWa- <> *apa- "water"
(and as a side remark, note
Chinese 'quan .. EMC kwen', "watering channels"' (with collective
suffix -n) in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44559
and
Chinese 'xù EMC xwik "water channel, city moat"' in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/43973
and now we have outrageously connected *k^ank- "circle"
with *akWa- (which must have meant some type of
"artificial water" for there to be a need for the word to be loaned,
ie. it meant, at the time of loan, (circular) "moat" or a semi- or
quarter-circular one, if your defended area was in a fork
between rivers, cf the centre of Hamburg (there was that
word again) between the rivers Alster and Elbe.)
Torsten