From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50196
Date: 2007-10-01
----- Original Message -----From: stlatosSent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:40 PMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was: Latin m>w, w>m)===========
> 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.
=============A.F :
"not interesting in trying".
I have my own convictions, but I am not AFRAID of looking at other people's data and hypotheses. I feel it is exciting and stimulating, even though I often disagree.
I understand this statement as a form of weakness :
You need to avoid looking at this hypothesis because you feel insecure.
Bad news as far as you are concerned.
======================
> 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.=================
A.F :
Which instances do you have where -s- is not added ?
this -s- in Greek seems to be pervading many items.
=======================
> 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.=======================
A.F
I don't think this is irregular : all morphemes involved are good PIE :
bh_H2 + nt + s + m
The order is a bit unusual. You might expect -nt- to be last.
As far as I am concerned, I don't think this unusual order is a "huge" problem.
======================
Other changes involving sim. original clusters:
*H2an-H1,-mn, = *xan-xY,-mYn. , > *ans.ma 'breathing'==========
A.F
H2 is the same as H1 ?
Strange !?
I don't believe this.
====================
then opt. ns. > nts. (as in the dif. between phasma / phantasma) which
in this case undergoes metathesis so:
*ants.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma===================
A.F
This example is worth considering, although unclear :
My own guess : Asthma = un-breath = n-H2nH1-sm- ??
It is hard to know where a true vowel can be inserted to fluidify this pack of consonants.
You might be near to the right solution, but it still lacks something.
==========================
Both changes of KY > T. and met. also in:
*xaxarisYkYox > ararisko: 'arrange'*xarisYkYmos > *aris.t.mos > *arit.s.mos > arithmos 'number'
==============================
A.F
I don't believe this
but it takes too long to explain.
=====================
> 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-).==================
A.F :
ok why not !?
I prefer it to be only Greek, although I am still unconvinced.
I misunderstood you as implying a PIE-stage change.
I will try to find other examples in Greek, which I may believe.
====================
> 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.==================
A.F
You wrote "m? and m fused long before PIE"
This contains more than one statement :
1. m? and m can be distinguished. (ok with me)
2 . they were fused in PIE. (I think this is false)
3. A language cognate to PIE has a different treatment. (I think it is true)
4. This different treatment can be showed to be "much" (= "long"= earlier than the split of PIE with its closest cognate languagues. (I think it is very difficult to prove this)
If you wrote this "responsably", (I am confident you know what you do and say)
you must have data to substantiate or hint that these statements make sense.
(I have already been waiting for a week about your data)
================