----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:38 PMSubject: 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.===Bla bla bla===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.===============Arnaud FournetThis (Starostin or alias) is not significantly different from Baxter.All these guys abide by the paradigm of "mono-syllabic" old-chinese.Something I hold as definitely refutable, wrong and old.No credence at all.The self proclaimed "new school" is phoneyAs I wrote before.But I respect Starostin,a bold person, that is now dead and deserves respect.Something I will not write, say and think about you================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.Feasy to convert into my own reconstruction *ngahans.you seem to avoid understanding obvious equivalences.You lack some basicsabout intelligence, human truth, faith, phonology, etcWhen did you write "calamitous" in this mail ?==========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.Fyou make everybody waste timereading your lengthy and verbose avowal of failure.============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.========A.FAs I wrote in a previous mail,I just re-write other people *ngaj as being in fact *ngah.A minor and slight adjustment.nothing to do a flimsy verbum ex machina.You asked whether you are wrong.So it is a waste of time when I tell you you are wrong.as you seem to already know it,but you lack the ability to look at yourself in the mirror.=============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.============A.F"silly"no comments.I think you understand nothing at all about old Chinese.=============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.============A.FSometimesI feel glad to provide happiness to other people,in your case,considering the fact that you are bad-faithed, foul-mouthed and mean,I do not feel glad at all.you are protecting yourself from your own feeling of being off balance and wrong,spewing contempt on me will not be enough to hidesome basic truths about you and your old bad damned theories.You failed to provide anything concrete.You are just venting your impotence.You are dodging a real scientific debatebecause you already know you will fail to succeed.===============Patrick Ryan----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 1:48 AMSubject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
----- 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.
.