From: tgpedersen
Message: 49588
Date: 2007-08-22
>wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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@>
> > > > >It's not a book, and in case you didn't get the reference the last
> > > > > > > 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?
>
> I have no idea how to make this any clearer: you said it was
> possible pY > pt and py ( > pY?) > pt; I said pY probably existed as
> part of the second chain; you said "What does that mean and how would
> you tell?"
>
> If you wanted to know something else, what was it?
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> As mentioned: polis, gnupetos/gnupteo:/gnupo:n, ark(t)os,
> kolumbaina; also bdella/blewues 'leeches'; ptolemos may have IE
> cognates, but I'll let that stay in the "uncertain" category.
>
> These are just for the changes you've mentioned; I don't know
> every dia. change that could be regarded as borrowing by someone.
> Similar changes in khthizos/seros 'yesterday', xeno-/skheno-
> 'stranger', etc.
>
> > > 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,
> > please do tell.
>
> If you want to know, there are books on the subject. I have no
> idea why Beekes would come to such ridiculous conclusions, but if he
> didn't know of or mention Greek dialects, the book must be
> completely worthless.