Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

----- Original Message -----

From: stlatos

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:31 PM

Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)

> ============ ========= =
>
> the plain x>s() also in:
>
> *bhax+ 'shine, appear'
> *bhanYax+ (present)
> *bhanY-x-mYn. , > *phanYsY-mYn. , > phasma / phantasma
> ============ ===
If both *+smn, and *+smo+s were separate from *+mn, and *+mo+s they
should appear with roots with any type of V and C combinations equally
often; since they do not and vary within IE languages I think later
sound changes of C>s and C>Cs, etc., seem more likely.
===================

A.F :

 

1. I understand -x- as : unvoiced velar spirant ?

The identification of H2 as unvoiced is falsifiable with absolute certainty.

 

Following the orthodox approach to H2,

it is kept in Anatolian as h or hh.

 

The word kilu-hepa (of Hourrite origin but this changes nothing).

was heard by Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom as k_r_g_p.

g is a voiced velar stop.

Egyptian has no voiced velar spirant but it had :

- unvoiced velar stop k

- unvoiced velar spirant kh

- unvoiced pharyngal spirant H

- voiced glottal spirant h

- probably glottalized velar stop q

Hence,

Egyptians CHOSE a voiced velar stop as the best match for -h-.

 

The identification of H2 as unvoiced is impossible.

My point of view is that all values of H2 are either voiced or glottalized.

-x- is H1.

 

2. as regards this supposed palatalization of H2 into -s-,

Apart from the fact that this should be phaz-ma,

 

I don't understand the use of positing such a change.

the suffix -s-m is a regular morpheme of Greek

although the most frequent form is -is-m-os

 

This word is entirely explained as a Greek creation

from PIE *bhaH2 plus -s- infinitive plus -m- instrumental.

 

I don't understand the purpose of inventing a phonological law

for PIE from a Greek word what is obviously 100% Greek creation.

 

I don't believe this change applies to PIE.

But If I had to study this,

I would rather look at examples like : to blow, bla-s-en, blare 

The problem is that -s- can be explained as being a suffix.

You need an example not explainable thru morphology to support H > s.

 

3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :

You dodge the question.

 

I believe glottalized m did not merge with m? in PIE.

 

As regards yam? "sea" :

Semitic : yam

Greek : yaw-ani "ionian"

 

Samoyed : yamx (realized as fricative velar) < *yam? "Artic Sea".

This word does not end with -m- but -mx-.

Any suffix like -k- or -x- should have assimilated -m- as -ng-.

So this word is "naked" : no suffix.

 

From this example, I infer that the correspondance for :

m is m = m = m

m? is m = w = m

 

What are your examples ?

 

=====================
You wrote :

I've given the correspondences many times before. Since I have to
show rules in which xY > x+y and so on they are more convenient. With
all the extra sounds I have for PIE I can't use abstractions when
trying to convince people of their nature.

 

===========

A.F

It doesn't take much time to write if [?] or [x] is H1 or H2.

And it makes things clearer.

 

=======================