Re: Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 50620
Date: 2007-11-27

Master Fournet:
 
"too old to be precocious"? Well, how old are you?
 
"more than one academic qualification"? Well, what are they?
 
No answer will brand you as shameful at answering either question.
 
I do dare to explicitly state my academic qualifications.
 
B.A. in German (minor French) from the University of Nebraska. 2 years of graduate study (Middle Eastern Studies) at the University of Chicago.
 
56 years of self-study of linguistics.
 
I have a website with a great deal of material, accessible to anyone, and open to peer criticism (which I have incorporated when it was not frivolous) at proto-language.com.
 
What have you got besides a few emails?
 
 
Patrick Ryan
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re:Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re:Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

Master Fournet:
 
I am changing my mode of address since your last few posts have convinced me that you are a precocious child with no academic qualifications whatsoever and little self-confidence.
============ =
A.F
Sorry,
but I am too old to be a precocious child.
And I am too young to be Fu-Gong : Master Fu.
I don't plan to become a JeDi.
And You misinterpreted my last mails
I have more than one academic qualification,
And by the way,
you asked me about mine
but you have not dare talk about yours.
I may have too much self-confidence,
this is one of my bad habits.
Here again you fail to understand what's up.
===========
 
I last looked at Sino-Tibetan about 10 years ago. Neither Starostin nor Matisoff were then available to me. I had to rely on Karlgren, and I believe the progress since his theories has been stupendous.
=======
A.F
Not that much stupendous.
Basically the same damn old thing painted a different color.
============ ==
 
I confess it does seem like a Christmas gift to know that Matisoff's work is now easily available; and I have ordered his book from Amazon ($95).
 
As for determining the quality of the missing vowels, the premise of my work is that through semantic and phonological analysis, the meanings of the earliest monosyllables of the *CV can be determined. Although PIE shows only *e among the short vowels (*CéC), other related languages have retained the vowel quality (mostly): Sumerian has i/a/u. And Egyptian differentiated between PAA a/i and u by different signs: p = ba/e; f = bo. Even where an exact cognate is not present, semantically related forms can help to determine the the earliest vowel. PIE offers to helps: velar stops before *E become palatal; and a few long vowels (*e:, *a: *o:) point to the earlier vowel quality. In fact, PIE *a only exists as a reduction from *a:.
 
Through these and other languages, it can be determined that Proto-Language *PHA has, among other semantically related meanings, the meaning 'flat(ten)'.
 
Similarly, it can be determined that *PHO has the meaning 'cause one's self to swell up, become full'.
 
Also, the appropriate monosyllable base for 'fire' is *PFHE, 'send out sparks'.
 
I assume that the language which connects Sino-Tibetan with PAA (and through it, PIE) had reached, at least predominantly, the compounding stage of development: *CVC(V).
 
Whether additional root extensions happened in that language (Sino-Caucasian? ) or some other, *pal preceded *p(a)ling, *pol *p(o)leng, and *p(e)wa:r.
 
I believe your comparison (or Matisoff's) of *prut with *bhereu- is probably better compared with *preu-t-, based on *PHO again (*p(o)reu-t- ).
 
I have no thoughts at this time on the missing vowel of *pral.
==========
A.F
All these lines mean nothing.
bla bla bla.
You have provided nothing as usual.
Obscure wording is neither proof nor data.
 
============ ==
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 11:59 PM
Subject: Re:Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 8:44 PM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

CORRECTION
 
*paleng, *poling
 
Patrick Ryan
============ ===
 
A.F
Christmas day is near. And you sound like a little boy happy with a new toy.
 
What makes you so confident you can find the missing vowels ?
 
And which proto-language are paleng and poling ?
 
============ =========
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

Mr. Fournet:
 
An additional note.
 
I think I can even discover the original missing vowels: e.g. *paling, *poleng.
 
Patrick Ryan
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

Mr. Fournet:
 
I honestly do not understand your point about the "mono-syllabic (sic!) paradigm".
 
Though I postulate a very early language that was (at least, predominantly) CV, which I call the Proto-Language, by the time we reach PAA (and, much later, PIE), roots are predominantly CVC.
 
Not long after that stage, a large proportion of the roots were CVC-C (comparable to the triconsonantal Semitic roots).
 
I have no trouble at all assuming that *pleng is derived from an earlier *pVléng but so what?
 
 
Patrick Ryan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 12:28 AM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

There's no certainly sign of them in Matisoff's 'Handbook of
Proto-Tibeto- Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan
Reconstruction' (accessible via
http://repositories .cdlib.org/ ucpress/ucpl/ vol_135/ ), though some
languages have acquired them. Incidentally, its Appendix A seems a
good reference for reconciling reconstructions of Chinese phonology.
============ ====

A.F :

I have written that Chinese was oxytonic (stressed on last vowel) and that this caused a major syllabic "crunch" in this language.

Now, if you look at pages 607/608 of the above reference,

pleng : flat surface => Cf. PIE pel(H2)

pling : full => Cf. PIE pel(H1/w)

pral : forehead => cf. PIE per(H2)

prut : boil => Cf. PIE bherew-

pwa(:)r : fire => Cf. PIE puH2ar

It is quite clear that these words are cognates not loanwords. They had more than one syllable in ST before the "crunch".

This confirms my conclusion : the mono-syllabic paradigm is false.

Notwithstanding the respect to be paid to people who spent thousands of hours to make their way through the quagmire of Sino-Tibetan, the assessment of their work holds in two words : about worthless. Because they have worked on the wrong premiss : Sino-Tibetan languages do not derive from a mono-syllabic ancestor.

this is a provably wrong hypothesis.

And there is no way out but to discard this damn mono-syllabic paradigm.

A.F

============