Re: Comments on Beekes' pre-Greek

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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?
>
> You're the one who recently said:
> --- 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?

Erh, I question what?

> 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;

That's just algebra, I wanted to know they differed phonetically.

>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?

The tY is Beekes' proposal. What I think happened is that PIE stops
before stops were spirantized, as in Avestan, and that then þ > s and
ð > z. Thus the original loanword had -tk- which was loaned once which
became -þk- > -sk- and then reloaned and metathized to -kt-.

>
> > > 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.

Beside gnupetos?

> > > there are simple sound changes in the dialects of almost every
> > > language.
> >
> > Obviously. How is this relevant?

I'll help you.
Premises:



Conclusion:

> The alternations aren't from borrowing, they're from sound changes
> in the dialects.

Please fill out the blank space.

> Do you think dif. dialects:
> 1 borrowed the foreign sounds differently as sounds/combinations
> already existing in Greek

I wasn't talking about dialects.

> or 2 all dia. borrowed the foreign sounds directly and sound changes
> in the dialects differed (one with pY>p, another pY>pt)?

I wouldn't know. I have the text of Beekes. If you know anything about
some particular dialect distribution of the interchanges, pleas do tell.

> Either way, the dia. dif. must be accounted for.

Please do.


Torsten