From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50219
Date: 2007-10-06
----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:28 PMSubject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-CaucasianI will get back to what really matters : DATA.My point of view : I have already made clear.Point 1 :PIE inherited a set of four vowels :*i *u *a (written as <e> by tradition) *oPoint 2 :Innovative morphological processes within PIEhave lead to a situation where :1. vowel *i and consonant *y2. vowel *u and consonant *wabout function in the same way.(And this applies to many Chamito-Semitic languages as well)============Point 1 is demonstrated by :A : root y_d "full" moonBasque (h)ilLatin i:d-u:sEgyptian yid-aHBasque never treats *i as -y-.A clear case of vowel *i.B : root n_y_l "night"Sanscrit ni:raArabic layla.In Arabic, Point 2 also appliesbut Sanscrit has no historical processthat could explain why a short *i could become long i:So we are sure that in this root we are dealing with *-y- not *iA case of vowel *i, unexplainable otherwise.the rare scheme *i_a is an archaic variant of *o_a,exceedingly rare in PIE but frequent in Chamito-Semitic.Ca lot of Greek lexemata :i-kn-u / i-gn-u / i-skh-nos / i-khthu:s / etc===All these data have *i and *u as vowels not consonants.==============Next :Gotic has the wordtr-u-dan : to tread (Streitberg 1920 : page 302 "treten)How do you account for the fact that this Gotic wordOBVIOUSLY is from root *tr_d, with -u- as vowel.Streitberg calls this : "unreg. Ablaut"This is a hole in the orthodox theory of PIE apophony.Neither Gotic nor Greek abide by the orthodox theory.=================Somebody previously wrote : "we know who is who around here".I am confident that in a very near future,people will be able to tell who actually"knows nothing and only writes for an excuse to insult with his very dull wit."I am not afraid about the ultimate judgment that will come from this polemic,So far, I have provided many examples, in favor of my point of view,I am confident that in the end, people will judge facts and data.My point of view is clearand so are my examples.I have already won the fight, and you have lost,The End.=======================----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:32 AMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:49 PMSubject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:30 PMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Renfrew's theory renamed as Vasco-Caucasian
***What has been "killed" is the expectation that Arnaud has any understanding of the meaning of 'verbal'.============ =======A.FMost roots cannot be separated as verbal or nominal.***A statement that is ignorance personified.In any case, it is certainly not true of PIE,PCR***What is more : in most cases,it is the vocalic scheme that gives the final grammatical status tothe compound : Consonant root + Vocalic scheme.It is true with PIE :dh_H1 + vowel /e/ = a verbdh_H1 + vowel /o/ = a noun.***The PIE root has the form *CAC where *A has the form *e, *o, *ø, or *R if the final *C is a resonant. The choice is based on stress-accentual considerations not grammatical ones.PR*** 88It is true also in Chinese :n_p + vowel /a/ = verb "to enter"n_p + vowel /o/ = noun "inside, interior"This is basically a proto-World phenomenon.There are hundreds of cases of roots grammatically undetermined.***Again, pure nonsense. Even Afroasian, a closely connected language to PIE, has anything like *A.I am beginning to suspect that Arnaud knows he knows nothing and only writes for an excuse to insult with his very dull wit.Patrick Ryan***<snip>.