Re: Diphthong Distributions

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <elme@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > > I believe the received wisdom is that PIE *dh, *d, *t >
> > > Hittite t. This doesn't look like that at all.
>
> The received wisdom is indeed that, in initial position.
> Internally, we have *d/dh > -t-, and *t > -tt- by Sturtevant's
> law. There are of course also the special rules that *ti > zi,
> while *dhi > ti, and apparently *di > si (Sius < *diews), which
> must have been separated before the merger.
>
> When we find a statistic preponderance of ti-/te- and da- (as
> in tehhi, daitti, da:i), it is at least in part a matter of pure
> graphics. The signs TA and DA are homophonous in Hittite,

under the theory that *dh-, *d-, *t- merged

> but DA and TI are each one wedge simpler than TA and TI, and TE
> is very much simpler than DÉ (DE is not used by the Hittites).
> Therefore, the "default" way of writing /ta/, /te/ and /ti/ in
> Hittite is by the signs DA, TE and TI (but see below).

But why not assume instead that they meant what they wrote?

> > > Now it's known that PIE *o > Hittite a and that PIE
> > > *dh,* d, *t > Hittite z before *e, *i (note the ske-verb
> > > *deh1-sk^- > zikk-).

> The z- of zikkizi is not from *dhe- or *dhi-, but from
> dental + /s/, the general preform being *dhH1-sk^é-ti.
> The first <-i-> may be silent.

If it is, the pronunciation is *tskítsi, which doesn't look like
much else in Hittite. If it isn't, the qustion is why that
epenthetic vowel didn't appear in a more handy place, as eg.
*tsisktsi?

> > > Therefore all those forms that have da- must come from
> > > *dhoh1- (o-grade) and those in ti-, te- must come from
> > > *dHh1- (zero-grade) where the laryngeal protects the
> > > dental from affricatization.
>
> That, then, is not necessary.


> > > I think Hittite added an -i- to the verb stem (this is a
> > > classic PIE long-vowel verb in CV:(i)-).
>
> That is surely right. The -i- is in my opinion due to analogy
> with long-diphthong roots like *speH1y- 'thrive' which in
> part had an allomorphy *speH1y-V-/*speH1-C/*spH1i-: ispa:i,
> ispiyanzi. That led to da:i, tiyanzi.
>
> > > I can't understand why neither Oettinger nor Jasanoff has
> > > something to say about this distribution of root initials
> > > (Oettinger has a chapter on it which makes no sense to me).
> > > If my analysis is true, we should give up the idea taken
> > > from Sanskrit that present sigular has gun.a, pl. zero-grade
> > > of the root and instead posit the root vowel like this
> > > (but this is the hi-, not the mi-conjugation):
> > >
> > > 1sg zero
> > > 2sg -o-
> > > 3sg -o-
> > > 1pl zero
> > > 2pl -o-(?)
> > > 3pl zero
> > >
> > > cf u-HI/au-HI//aus^-MI "see"
> > > And what is more: the initial root-consonant alternated
> > > (here d/t/z) with the ablaut. Now I have all the way
> > > believed that this must be the case; as soon as ablaut
> > > alternation was there, it must have started eating away
> > > at the preceding consonant, causing confusing alternation,
> > > which made people generalize one consonant or the other,
> > > thus creating what to us now looks like a consonant shift,
> > > as in kentum/satem, or, in this case, decem/taihun.
>
> This is all a gross over-interpretation of the facts. Tehhi and
> uhhi reflect a simple sound change ai > e: before h.

You mean ai > e: and au > u:? That's not even symmetrical.

> Kimball has a fine chapter on diphthongs. She says they are
> basically retained before resonants and s, 2sg daitti and
> autti being then analogical.

So, 1sg tehhi and uhhi follow the rule, and 2sg daitti and
autti are analogical. A-hem. I prefer my explanation.

> Still, it does look like a "consonant shift" of sorts when
> Oettinger points out in his Stammbildung that in the oldest
> texts word-initial t-/d- and k-/g- are etymologically
> surprisingly reliable. The later default writing is with t-
> and k-.

From the above, it's zi-, te-, da-, not zi-, te-, ta-.

> From my years in Erlangen I remember hearing talk of a
> Hittite sound change gi- > ki- and di- > ti-, this accounting
> i.a. for the tenacious ki-(i-)ir 'heart' and tianzi 'they put'.
> The observation is Eichner's.

But the question here was whether the outcome was zi-, te-, da-
or zi-, te-, ta-. There are some surprising alternations gang-/
kank- too.

> I wonder what one should make of the etymologically "correct"
> spellings. The best I can think of is historical orthography
> going back to a time before the merger was complete in initial
> position.

As I said, that seems to be another question.


Torsten