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

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

>
>
> ----- 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.

In my earlier descriptions; I've said x() > G() / V_V and GY > y /
GW > v there. Even so, more ev. than what you have below makes it
likely Hittite had x in most positions; if it was G somewhere there's
no way of showing which is original, and I'm not interested in trying.

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

Mostly something of a reverse pal. of xY>s. and

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

the later voicing has nothing to do with my rules.

> 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

That's a later analogical creation for verbs ending in -iz[d]o: and
doesn't have any connection to the supposed PIE *+smn, and *+smo+s.

> This word is entirely explained as a Greek creation
> from PIE *bhaH2 plus -s- infinitive plus -m- instrumental.

Why would this -s- not be added to every sort of stem? There are so
many different changes in each IE language I know it's not obvious at
first sight, but the ev. is certain even if complicated.

> I don't understand the purpose of inventing a phonological law
> for PIE from a Greek word what is obviously 100% Greek creation.

I'm trying to explain why something like phantasma would be created;
at any stage it would be irregular if newly formed, sound changes must
have obscured its origin. I gave my considered opinion.

Other changes involving sim. original clusters:

*H2an-H1,-mn, = *xan-xY,-mYn., > *ans.ma 'breathing'

then opt. ns. > nts. (as in the dif. between phasma / phantasma) which
in this case undergoes metathesis so:

*ants.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma

Both changes of KY > T. and met. also in:

*xaxarisYkYox > ararisko: 'arrange'

*xarisYkYmos > *aris.t.mos > *arit.s.mos > arithmos 'number'

> I don't believe this change applies to PIE.

It's not a PIE change; it's Greek, and sim. changes happen in other IE
languages, though at dif. times. Armenian has *mYn. > *wr. later,
after more C > Cs. changes (*luukYmYn., > *luks.wr., > lusawor-).

> 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.

Almost any sound could also be a morpheme by itself in PIE; yet new
sounds are created all the time in any language, having nothing to do
with meaning, only phonetics.

> 3. I asked you to provide examples for glottalized m? :
> You dodge the question.

I have no idea what ev. would convince you; since m? > m there's
nothing within PIE showing it clearly.