Re: Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 50582
Date: 2007-11-22

Mr. Gournet:
 
I think your protestations about reconstruction make absolutely no sense.
 
Your "major or minor adjustments" are, after all, made to these reconstructions.
 
If you really prefer to directly compare Beijing yàn with , for example, German Gans as you seem to be  saying, good luck! It is, perhaps not impossible but the argument will be extremely difficult and unconvincing to most students of this question.
 
If you have _new_ ideas on tonogenesis, I am sure we would all be interested to learn them. Until you do, it is not very sporting to denigrate those that almost all Sinologists endorse.
 
If you think that existing theories do not explain Min and Qiong dialectal forms, show us a few examples. Who knows, you may have a point but pronunciamentos alone will not convince anyone. 
 
As for (classificatory) prefixes, Old Chinese does not show them but if Sino-Tibetan parented Old Chinese, the other derived languages seem to show that prefixes were once a component of Chinese words though subsequently lost.
 
In the case of *nga:ns, I propose that *n+*ga:ns became *nga:ns (/ng/) so that the compositional nature of the initial was lost, and could not be separated (>*ga:ns).
 
Though I will not question that *nga:ns can derive from *ngahan, where does the glide fit in? I propose a reconstruction of *(n)gehan, which explains Beijing much better.
 
This provides a tighter fit with PIE *g^ha(:)ns and means that the ancestor of both had a front vowel in the first syllable.
 
I see you are changing your argument: *gheH2-ens? Where did that come from?  No longer a compound?
 
Anything is possible in this best of all possible worlds but spontaneous nasalization is _rare_.
 
Chinese *ng = PIE *gh? Wrong. All agree that the Sino-Tibetan form had initial *ng. Are you denying that?
 
If you are going to emend experts (*ngaj to *ngah), you might, at least, state explicitly that the emendation is strictly Fournet, i.e. non-expert, so we can fairly weigh the discrepancy.
 
While I realize that some think "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", in a linguistic discussion, it is greatly appreciated.
 
 
Patrick Ryan
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:38 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.
=========
A.F
Reconstructions are scientific artefacts
with explicit and implicit hypotheses.
Most often, they contained too much "added value".
And very often too, they are not that good.
The reason why I usually make minor or major adjustments.
As far as I am concerned, I prefer real languages.
They are less misleading than proto-languages.
And most reconstructers fail to understand that more than one solution is possible starting from the same data.
 
============ =====
 
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).
==========
A.F
 
Basically, all these guys work within the same paradigm :
mono-syllabic old Chinese.
My assessment of their work is simple : they are reliable for northern Han dialects down to AD 0.
They have failed to explain Min and Qiong Dialects,
and they have too simple ideas about tonogenesis,
the reason why they cannot handle Min and Qiong.
I believe Old Chinese (BC -1000) had words with two and three syllables.
 
As regards *nga:ns, it is obvious that it can derive from *ngahans.
============ =====
 
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.
==========
A.F
I am very sceptical about that kind of theories about Chinese.
I don't think proto-Chinese (or its ancestor) ever had prefixes.
============ ======
 
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.
=========
A.F
In that case, it is Chinese *ng that is equal to PIE *gh.
you needn't remove the nasal component.
NB : *ng = *gh is not always true.
because both *ng and *gh have more than one origin.
 
It is not tantalizing.
Chinese ngahans is obviously the same thing as PIE *gheH2-ens.
 
============ =
 
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.
=====
A.F
Baxter : old chinese phonology page 755 : *ngaj
I am the one who rewrites this as *ngah.
============
 
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) .
============
A.F
I have stated from the start that there is a contraction *ngahans > yan4.
===========
 
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.
===========
A.F
LOL
============ ======
 
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.

 

.