----- Original Message -----From: Patrick RyanSent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:07 PMSubject: [Courrier indsirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
----- Original Message -----From: fournet.arnaudSent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:47 AMSubject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)
<snip>============ =A.FSandawe dao = BeiJing dao4 (no need for explanation)Sandawe de = BeiJing duo1 from Baxter taj (a + yod = e)Sandawe diHa= BeiJing dan4 from A.F : to-x-an (x velar spirant unvoiced)dan4 is suffixed in Chinese and is from a 2-syllable word.Words rhyming in -an in BeiJing have ua in HaiKou and uing in JianOu,a clear indication that they come from o_an not just -an.As you know, Historical linguistics is the only science were coincidences are treated as valuable data, while others fields consider they are just random.***I have acknowledged in another posting the possibility of a connection between Sandawe de: (what happened to the length of the vowel in the above) and Starostin's pre-classical Old Chinese *ta:j.Now, the Sandawe form cited originally is di?a (not diHa as "emended" above). The Sino-Tibetan form Starostin has for 'egg' is *t[u]j. While it might be of interest to compare ST *ti with di?a, Fournet's own reconstruction of "to-x-an" leaves the non-correspondence of the vowel qualities unaddressed.Patrick Ryan==========A.F (New on Dec 2) :so you agree with word1 and word2 Dao and De.Starostin's reconstruction is within the mono-syllabic paradigm and the excessive number of vocalic correspondances makes it necessary to add a short / long opposition to Old Chinese (- 1000)This opposition is unnecessary in my system, as I reconstruct more than one syllable with only short vowels.So Starostin *ta(:)j can just be read *taj.Now as regards "sino-tibetan" forms from Starostin : namelyProto-Sino-Tibetan: *t[u]j Meaning: egg Kachin: di2 egg, testicle. Lushai: tui egg, KC *Dui. Lepcha: tí, a-tí an egg Kiranti: *ʔtìPoint 1 :As stated before, I consider that this "ST" thing is not a legitimate knot in the genealogical tree of Proto-Sapiens. It has to cut in (at least) two legitimate branches.The languages cited above belong to macro-Burmese, not macro-SiniticPoint 2 :Nevertheless,It is all the more interesting to note that :Chinese from me : tox-ancan just be the suffix form of Starostin Macro-Burmese *tuj < *tox.(x = velar unvoiced spirant)You are providing data, confirming my reconstruction of Old Chinese is better.Thank you,As for di?a, I haven't studied Sandawe in detail,so I cannot provide examples showing that /?/ can be from */x/The point remains an open question.***A.F (old)Now as far as Arabic is concerned,this language displays a very high level ofsegmental "instability" :Verbs meaning to cut :batta, batara, barata, batala, balata, sabata, bataka.r and l are both infixes and suffixes.And there are hundreds of examples like that.Most affixes can appear anywhere :rashsh : sprinkle watert?a-rashHamâ : to be angryHa-t?-amHamm : blackHama-t?a : black bloodIt is always hard to know which two consonants might be the "real" root.============ =***The process described above is not one I have ever seen described in a text on PAA or Semitic. No expert in either mentions "segmental instability" as far as I know.If this is the view of an expert ("real" root), evena minority view, I would like a reference.
========A.FYou can get plenty of it here :but it is written in French.============ ===***Nothing I can see at the link given above addresses the point I made.Patrick Ryan========A.F (New on Dec 2)I suppose people who can read French will see.I can provide more examples.***I have no idea what "t?" is supposed to mean in an Arabic word if not a sequence of /t-?/. Perhaps the writer above means Humatun, blackness, where the final -t is the feminine inflection.============A.F-t?- is emphatic tI chose to write it this way for the sake of clarityother symbols may fail to go thru unicode.And by the way,I can tell -t- from -t?-,so your last sentence is somethingwe can all make do without it.============ ====***Since no one in PAA or Semitic studies (except Fournet) indicates 'emphatics' with, e.g. t? for dotted t, it can hardly serve the purpose of clarity to initiate such a usage - particularly with notification.Patrick Ryan===============A.F : (New on Dec 2)Dotted t would fail to go thru unicode.I suppose people working on emphatic and glottalized AA languageswill have no trouble understanding what t? stands for.As far as clarity is concerned,do you really think that *THO-HHA-¿E is clear ?Personnally I can't figure out how to transcode it into IPA.But I suppose you can help.Do you remember the story about a beam and a straw ?Arnaud***.