Re: Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 50573
Date: 2007-11-21

It may be of interest to some readers that Starostin reconstructs Sino-Tibetan 'run' as *khjo (*khyo).
 
I have identified a PL syllable meaning 'deer, fast': KXHE, which shows up in PIE *ke:y- and in *kyeu-, which I presume to be cognate with ST *khyo.
 
The modern Beijing pronunciation is qu.
 
If my argument below has merit, this suggests a correspondence of PIE *gh with ST g, and PIE *k(h) with ST *kh.
 
cf. Sumerian ku (for *kü), 'throw'; PIE *s-k^(h)eu-, 'throw'.
 
 
Patrick Ryan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

Mr. Fournet:
 
I do not consider my approach to inter-proto- language comparison to be "old(-fashioned) "; I think you mistake traditional methods for "old". Some truths do not change much: Newton's apple still falls down from the tree, and the best (so far) explanation for the phenomenon is the theory of gravity.
 
If one wishes to compare proto-languages, the method with the greatest probability of success is to compare between languages/reconstru ctions that are roughly contemporaneous though I do not rule out the possibility of non-contemporaneous comparisons when one (or both) earlier forms are unavailable.
 
As for Baxter, I think most would allow that in this area the reconstructions of Sergei Starostin on Tower of Babel are worthy of, at least, tentative credence.
 
In this case, the appropriate stage to compare with PIE is Proto-Sino-Tibetan (not Sino-Caucasian as I mistakenly wrote).
 
His PST reconstruction for 'goose' is *nga:n(-s).
 
Though the initial *ng is the velar nasal, I am not taking any calamitous leap to entertain the possibility that it was earlier *n + *g since anyone familiar with Sino-Tibetan is bound to notice the pervasive prefixation in that language. I believe these prefixes were a Sino-Caucasian (and Sino-Tibetan) device for differentiating between related semantic applications of roots with a more generalized meaning.
 
What a prefixed *n- might mean I do not know. But if Sino-Caucasian (or, at least) Sino-Tibetan is anciently related to PIE, it might be a trace of the individualizer -*n found in PIE but derived from an earlier proto-language common to both.
 
This possibility is enhanced by the fact that *(n)ga:ns is so tantalizingly similar to PIE *g^hans.
 
There is no mention of a *ngah in Starostin. I do not know if Baxter proposes it but I choose to subscribe to Starostin's reconstruction. I suspect that *ngah is from Fournet, a reconstruction, a verbum ex machina, to suit Fournet flimsy argument. Tell me I am wrong.
 
However, the reconstruction *ngaens is of more interest in view of the long vowel of *nga:ns. Also, as you know, I consider the *a of *g^hans to inevitably derive from*a:, a certain trace of a 'laryngeal'.
 
Also, you mention that *ngaens is in the chain from *ngahans, presumably where you got your silly *ngah by false division.
 
If we delete the prefix, and change the initial vowel from *a to *e, perhaps accounting for the palatalization of *g to *y, we arrive at a from *(n)gehans, which could easily lead to *(n)g(y)a:ns (you have something similar, *ng_yans, whatever the underline is supposed to mean although you totally miss the significance of the long vowel: a result of contraction and compensation) .
 
Also, I might remind you to take into consideration the palatal quality of *g^hans; it makes a big difference.
 
*gehans would compare very interestingly with the form *gheHans which I reconstruct to have preceded *g^ha(:)ns (from earlier *K?XE-HA-NA- SO).
 
A development of *K?XE to *g(y) (ST) and *g^h (PIE) is not too outré for you, is it Fournet.
 
A *g(y) could account for the modern Beijing reading of yàn; and I withdraw my previous objection to it arising from *nga:n(s) if we emend that form to *(n)gya:n(s) .
 
Now, so that you will not make such mistakes in the future, *(g)h- is not a voiced velar spirant. Where did you ever get such a strange idea? Also, I am not aware than anyone has reconstructed voiced aspirated stops for Sino-Tibetan (or Chinese, for that matter). I am sure you will let me know if I am wrong.
 
I looks to me as if their "reinterpretation" and "adjustment" are better viewed as _simple_ learner's mistakes.
 
 
Patrick Ryan
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:24 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: 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.

 

.