Re: Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50661
Date: 2007-12-02


 
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ryan
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:07 PM
Subject: [Courrier indsirable] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)



 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Anser (was: swallow vs. nighingale)



 
<snip>
 
============ =
A.F
Sandawe 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 : namely
 
Proto-Sino-Tibetan: *t[u]j

Meaning: egg

Kachin: di2 egg, testicle.

Lushai: tui egg, KC *Dui.

Lepcha: tí, a-tí an egg

Kiranti: *ʔtì
 
Point 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-Sinitic
 
Point 2 :
Nevertheless,
It is all the more interesting to note that :
Chinese from me : tox-an
can 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 of
segmental "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 water
t?a-rash
 
Hamâ : to be angry
Ha-t?-am
 
Hamm : black
Hama-t?a : black blood
 
It 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), even a minority view, I would like a reference.
========
A.F
You 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 t
I chose to write it this way for the sake of clarity
other symbols may fail to go thru unicode.
And by the way,
I can tell -t- from -t?-,
so your last sentence is something
we 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 languages
will 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
 
***
 
.