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: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:40 PM
> Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] xY>xy; x>s; etc. (was:

Latin m>w, w>m)

> ======================
>
> 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.
> ====================

They're not the same: H1 = xY and H2 = x

> ===========
>
> > 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 didn't say I was afraid. I don't feel there's much point in
trying to figure out where h = x and h = G in a dead language in
regards to determining whether the sound was originally voiced or
voiceless in the proto-language.

It makes no difference to any rules, and I already said I believe
x>G in some positions in PIE anyway.

> 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.

Well, ending in -ma: magma, omma, sperma, okhe:ma, kri:ma, gno:ma,
thema, stoma, thauma (and hundreds of others).


On the other hand, those ending in -sma:

*xakY+ 'sharp'
*xakY-mYn.,x > Myc. aiksma- / Hom. aikhme: 'spearpoints'

*derkY+ 'look (at)'
*dr,kY-mYn., > darkhma / drakhme: / etc.

*dexY+ 'bind'
*dexY-mYn., > Skt da:man-; Greek desmos

*xan-xY-mYn., > *ans.ma > *anths.ma > *ansthma > asthma

*bhanY-x-mYn., > phasma / phantasma

*bYhendh-x+ 'bind', bYhn,dhnYax+ (present)
*bYh(e)ndh-(nY)x-mYn., > pe(i)sma / pasma 'cable, rope'

A palatalized kY or xY (H1) > ks. or s.; probably x > s. only after
it's palatalized by a preceding CY, though there's not much evidence
either way.

The preceding C or V also makes a difference; akY > aiks but rkY >
arks; anY-x > an(t)s but unY-x > una; exY > es but ixY > i: (the pal.
i preserves pal. xY). The major dif. is that a "prefers" not to touch
a pal. C, so the feature Y is moved or changed when possible.

> 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.

Do you mean you think *-nt- '(3pl)' is added to form a noun? Or is
this some other affix?

> > 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.

You already gave some ev. for what you think was m?; I said it was
Nm instead. How can I prove which it was? This ties into many
different changes, such as the origin of the KW series in PIE, the
order of separation between IE, Uralic, and Afro-Asiatic, whether a
correspondence of m-w occurred from a change in PIE or later IE
languages, etc.

Not only am I unlikely to convince you, it would take a lot of time
and effort which would involve discussion and theorizing about non-IE
languages that aren't usually tolerated on this list.

The most important ev. I think there is, which I already gave, is
that Nm is more likely to denasalize to w than m? or any other nasal.