---- Original Message ----
From: stlatos
To:
cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>>
>> And my notices about words mentioned in this thread.
>>
>> 0. General notice. Contrary to Neo-grammarian believers, I doubt in
>> existence absolute phonetic rules in general
>
>> 1. "Goose", Latin anser. This word comes from rural dictionary, i.e.
> it is
>> dialectal, and then without the expected h- < IE *g^h-. Polish
>> ga,sior "gander" (= he-goose) may have the same suffix -er- (even if
> thematicized,
>> i.e. in the original form *-ero-, in Slavic).
>
> It had *-oro- but was contaminated with pal. from *ghansis.
Please do not distort, it had -ero-, not -oro-. In Polish -o- < -e- before a
non-palatalized dental (so called Polish umlaut). The evidence that we
had -e- here, not -o-, is the palatalized consonant spelt with <si>
(ga,_si_or). The common Slavic protoform of this word was *go,seru^ (o, =
nasal o, u^ = ultrashort u called yer).
>> Some satem languages give
>> evidence for *g^h- here, so Slavic go,si^ (i^ = soft yer) "goose" is
> a part
>> of the kentum vocabulary (some join it with Italian substrate in the
> history
>> of the Slavic branch, some suppose that g^(h) ... s > g(h) ...s - the
>> original palatal hardened when an "s" was in the word).
>
> This depal. is completely regular in Slavic:
>
> KY > K before a unless a was followed by K
>
> (assuming H2 = x)
I do not understand what is the relation between H2 and KY or K.
A very complicated rule, limited to only few examples, so without practical
importance. Who is its author? How many examples do you know? Could you list
them?
A good and acceptable rule should explain all examples of k, g on the place
of IE k^, g^(h) - but such a rule is absent and impossible to formulate as
"kentumization" is not a regular process. In my opinion, one of the best
rules of this type is Meillet's rule saying that depalatalization took place
if the word had already contained a sibilant (that is -s-, including the
allophone -z-). This rule explains such examples as:
Slav. *go,si^ < *g^hans-i- "goose" (see below!)
Slav. *gve^zda < *g^hwaigW-zd- "star" (cf. Greek phaidrós "bright, fair,
light", Lith. z^vaigzde. "star")
Slav. *kosa < *k^osa: "scythe" (see Skr. s'asati "he cuts")
Slav. *lasku^rdi^ < *laHs-k^rdi- "desire" (*k^rd-i-ko- without -s- yields
si^rdi^ce "heart" in Slavic)
Slav. *svek(u^)ru^ < *swek^uro- "father-in-law" (cf. Skr. s'vas'ura)
The Meillet's rule is said to function as early as in Balto-Slavic - but
some word that have k, g in Slavic, have sibilants in Baltic - or inversely
(see "star"). So, the rule was not unexceptional, and this is true also
inside one subbranch, ex.
Lith. klausyti "to listen"
Slav. *sluxati, slys^e^ti "to listen, to hear" < *k^lous- (Skr. s'ros.ati)
Slav. *c^ermu^xa < *kermusa: < *k^erm- "bird cherry, Prunus padus aka Padus
avium"; Lith. kermus^e. "wild garlic, Allium ursinum"
Slav. *sermus^a "Prunus padus" or "Allium ursinum" in singular Slavic
dialects (originally: "a smelling plant")
Some deductions as for now:
1) Only two examples are for g^h > gh (only one directly before "a") while
none of the given examples has anything to do with the proposed rule k^ > k
before "a", so your rule is a clear science fiction as for me.
2) Meillet's rule explains more examples.
3) There are examples that contradicts Meillet's rule, including hesitations
within the Balto-Slavic branch, or even hesitations in one language. (This
CANNOT be explained by any rule!)
In addition, there are (quite numerous) examples which are not explained by
Meillet's rule. A long list of such examples is available on one of my
private pages,
http://www.aries.com.pl/grzegorzj/lingwpl/slowindoeuro2.html#kentum - but
the explanations are all in Polish. Here you are only excerpt of the list:
Slav. *bergu^ "shore" < *bherg^h- (see Skr. brhant "tall", Armenian berj (=
[berdz]) "height")
Slav. *z^i^ltu^ "yellow" (note that z^ < g before a front vowel, not < IE g^
which yielded z, not z^) < *g^hlH-to-, but also *zelenu^ "green" <
*g^helH-eno-
Slav. *c^erda "flock, herd, cattle" (c^ < k before front) < *k^erdh- (cf.
Engl. herd, Skr. s'ardha)
etc.
Note numerous examples of hesitations k ~ s and g ~ z in Slavic, like
*bru^kati ~ *bru^sati "throw, cast", *gybati ~ *zybati "to bend", *gordu^ ~
*zordu^ "a hedged place" (*gordu^ = town, *zordu^ = hedged place for a
hayrick).
Also go,si^ "goose" may have a second, satem form in Slavic (anyway, it has
such a form in Baltic). A remnant of that satem form is said to be Ukrainian
"dzus'", a call for geese.
One of prominent Slavists, Zbigniew Gola,b (having also publications in
English), brought a thesis that satem forms are connected with more
primitive culture while those kentum are connected e.g. with towns (see the
gordu^ / zordu^ example). He may be right; satem forms are also, as a rule,
less abstract (e.g. *pi^lzati "to crawl - about people or animals",
*pi^lgati "to crawl - about flames").
But this means that, indeed, (some) kentum forms in Slavic (especially among
them not explained by the Meillet's rule) are borrowings from (Venetian or
wider: Italic) substrate.
Let's go back to "goose". The Polish word "ga,sior" (Slavic *go,seru^) has
(by a chance?) the same element -er- like Latin anser (even if in thematic
shape in Slavic). Those who suppose Italic substrate in Slavic, see too much
convergence between both forms.
___________________________________________________________
Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html