----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:24 PMSubject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:21 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
<snip>
> PIE *ghans is a compound word : gh_H2 + H2_ns.
> So there is no "rural" or "irregular" situation.
> LAtin has the simple word H2_ns. Most other languages have the compound.
What are arguments for this hypothesis?============ ======
A.F
The arguments are to be found outside PIE.
For example, Chinese has both :
e2 : goose < *ngah (= gh_H2)
yan4 : goose < *ngah + ans- (=H2_ns)
Two synonyms : yan4 being a compound of ngah + ans
I disagree with the traditional view holding the -a- in *ghans < *ghH2H2ns
to be not of laryngeal origin.
I think this is wrong, (whatever Maitre Meillet thought about this)
============ =======
Patrick Ryan wrote :There is not a shred of credible evidence that yan4 is the result of a compound of * ngah + *ans. For that matter, e2 from *ngah is also so highly unlikely as to be incredible.
=====================
A.F
OK. Let's get into Chinese reconstruction :
yan4 : from Baxter (AD 500) *ngaens < (BC-1000) *ngrans.
In the traditional view this -ae- vowel is reinterpreted as being from *ra or *la,
I think this is much too simple, although sometimes true.
I agree -ae- is from -ya-, which is sometimes from *ra or *la.
In the case of *ngaens, it is from *nga(g)hans, the voiced velar spirant -(g)h- became yod, so that *ngahans > ng_yans > *ngaens.
This word was Two-syllabic with oxytonic stress as is usual in Old Chinese.
e2 : from Baxter (AD 500) *nga < BC-1000 *ngaj
For the same reason *ngaj is from *nga(g)h.
==
As you see, Dear M. Ryan, I am just reinterpreting Baxter's reconstructions and making one and only minor and slight adjustment : sometimes, yod is from a velar voiced spirant in Old Chinese.
My reinterpretation is all the more probable as it enables us to connect good old PIE with Old Chinese, as reconstructed by sinologists.
This is sensical macro-comparison. Connecting already existing reconstructions thru minor adjustments. It works. And it sheds a lot of new light on PIE.
I am afraid your old approach of PIE is bound to blow up, sooner or later.
Get ready for rough weather.
Arnaud.
.