From: mkelkar2003
Message: 47872
Date: 2007-03-15
>Thank you Dr. Wordingham for these detailed examples. The following
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@> wrote:
>
> I've converted the character entities (ʰ) that sneaked in to
> nornal Cybalist notation (H).
>
> [> Richard Wordingham wrote:]
> > > However, please leave out the examples
> > > that can be explained by Grassman's law -
>
> > See that is the problem here.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassmann's_law
>
> > "The fact that deaspiration in Greek took place after the change of
> > Proto-Indo-European *bH, dH, gH to /pH, tH, kH/, and the fact that no
> > other Indo-European languages have Grassmann's law, show that
> > Grassmann's law developed independently in Greek and Sanskrit; it was
> > not inherited from PIE."
>
> > Why independently? I would just put Greek and Sanskrit in one family.
>
> At most it's a phonetic constraint common to them. Actually, the law
> also applies to Tocharian.
>
> How widely could the law have applied? In most groups the effects
> would have been obliterated by the subsequent merger of aspirated and
> unaspirated voiced stops, though if it had applied to Slavonic it
> would have affected the operation of Winter's law.
>
> > "http://ablauttime.blogspot.com/2004/10/those-old-ie-sound-laws.html
> >
> > "I've spent the better part of the last two days (or so it seems)
> > either explaining to students how Grassman's Law can possible explain
> > exceptions to Grimm's law when it didn't even occur in Germanic or
> > trying to convince them that there is some reason that they should
> > learn what Grimm's Law, Verner's Law, Grassman's Law, and the Great
> > English Vowel Shift are.
>
> He should have thrown in some examples from Latin, which has distinct
> reflexes for word-initial voiced stops and voiced aspirated stops.
>
> > If one needs two more laws to explain
> > exceptions to an earlier law then its best to get rid of all three and
> > replace them with the ancient Indian tradition.
>
> > "A different analytical approach was taken by the ancient Indian
> > grammarians. In their view, the roots are taken to be underlying
> > /trikH/ and /tapH/. These roots persist unaltered in [trikH-es] and
> > [tapH-ein]. But if an /s/ follows, it triggers an "aspiration
> > throwback" (ATB), in which the aspiration migrates leftward, docking
> > onto the initial consonant ([tHrik-s], [tHap-sai])."
>
> Ancient Indian grammarians' views on Greek morphology?
>
> Grassmann's law also explains the stop consonant of the reduplicating
> syllable in Greek and, apart from the Law of Palatals, in Sanskrit.
> The Indian tradition also fails to explain why ATB applies to a voiced
> consonant in Sanskrit and a voiceless consonant in Greek (or does
> Grassmann's law affect any voiceless aspirates in Sanskrit?)
>
> Finally, you are still left with correspondences such as
>
> Skt _bandHati_, Greek _pentHeros_, English _bind_
>
> I don't see how the Indian tradition explains such correspondences.
> It isn't just Germanic which testifies to an initial voiced aspirate
> in such words - Latin does to, e.g.
>
> Skt _budHna_, Greek _putHme:n_, English _bottom_ (OE _boþm_ is more
> representative of Germanic - I'm not sure of the relevance of the
> surname _Botham_), Latin _fundus_.
>
> Skt _dahati_ 'burn', Greek _tepHra_ 'ash', Latin _foveo:_ 'to be warm'.
>
> You are only talking of an exception to Grimm's law if you start from
> the Greek or Sanskrit form - the Latin form also has an exceptional
> correspondence to the Greek and Sanskrit.
>
> Richard.
>
> > Proto-Indo-European *bH, dH, gH to /pH, tH, kH/, and the fact that noNow PIE is not real. Why the insistance on fitting reality to a
> > other Indo-European languages have Grassmann's law, show that
> > Grassmann's law developed independently in Greek and Sanskrit; it was
> > not inherited from PIE."
> > Proto-Indo-European *bH, dH, gH to /pH, tH, kH"M. Kelkar