From: Rick McCallister
Message: 50179
Date: 2007-09-30
> --- 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.
>
>
>