From: stlatos
Message: 49576
Date: 2007-08-21
>You're the one who recently said:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > > > The Greek change is independent of any borrowing. There would
> > > > also be kt>kk or k (ark(t)os); is that from borrowing?
> > >
> > > Beekes has k/kt as his alternation 1b which he explains by merging
> > > it with his alternation 5b kt/sk which he explains by positing a
> > > consonant capable of becoming both s and t (explaining kt as
> > > metathesized tk), as well as lost altogether, namely tY.
> >
> > What about kW>kY>tY>t before front V? If py > pt includes stages
> > with pY (very likely),
>
> What does that mean and how would you tell?
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> But he seems not to be aware of the fact that Greek pt is already
> accepted as coming from proto-Greek pj. That means one could envision
> another scenario for the loan of these two forms, namely:
>
> 1) proto-Greek loans pYolis from pre-Greek
> 2) proto-Greek pj > Greek pt, pjolis > ptolis
> 3) Greek borrows pYolis from pre-Greek as polis
Even when I agree with one part of your theory you question it? Did
you want to know the exact stages I think existed?
py ... by ... bhy
py ... by ... phy
pYy .. bYy .. pYhy
pYfYy bYvYy pYfYhy
pYfYy bYvYy pYfYy
pYfYy pYfYy pYfYy
pYsYy
pYsY
pYtY
pt
p (dia)
> > wouldn't ty>tYy and similar changes have occurred earlier?
>
> How would ty differ from tYy?
As t is dif. from tY; this is only the first stage in a long chain.
> > Probably also ti>tYi>sYi>si in dialects. I don't think there's any
> > stage in which a foreign borrowing with tY could enter Greek when
> > there was no tY.
>
> No tY in Greek you mean? You think a language can't borrow a word if
> it contains a phoneme the language doesn't have? Wrong.
You don't understand; I just gave three examples of tY existing at
dif. stages of Greek. None of them develop as the supposed borrowed
tY. When would this be borrowed so it could develop as you say?
> > In order to defend this theory you've had to say that obviously IE
> > words are really loans.
>
> That's not obvious to me.
Then if even gnupetos isn't obvious, I can't say anything that could
convince you.
> > There's nothing about any change that shows foreign influence;
>
> Those interchanges occur in words that don't have a proper IE
derivation.
As well as those that do.
> > there are simple sound changes in the dialects of almost every
> > language.
>
> Obviously. How is this relevant?
The alternations aren't from borrowing, they're from sound changes
in the dialects.
Do you think dif. dialects:
1 borrowed the foreign sounds differently as sounds/combinations
already existing in Greek
or
2 all dia. borrowed the foreign sounds directly and sound changes in
the dialects differed (one with pY>p, another pY>pt)?
Either way, the dia. dif. must be accounted for.
> > neither is there any evidence that these are really alternations
> > from borrowing foreign phonemes.
>
> Do you have a better explanation?
I gave it.