Re: swallow vs. nighingale

----- Original Message -----

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:06 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nighingale

> As is clear from the Møller quote in
> http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/50938
> in case you read it.
> =======
"(however, in no way all IE bi-consonantal roots were bi-consonantal
in pre-IE, since a large number of originally transitive
tri-consonantal nominal stems and their identical verbal stems, which
as transitive originally stressed the second syllable, have become
bi-consonantal by regular loss before the (lost) first vowel of a
laryngeal À, A., H., Y. or h in anlaut, as eg.:
1 n-bh- in OHG naba 'Nabe' from *`anébh- < pre-IE H.anáP.-,
2 n-bh- in Latin nebula from *`onébh- < pre-IE Y.anáP.-, as further in
s-bh- ... H.azáP.-,
w-bh- 'weben, texere' ... < H.awáP.-,
w-bh- 'sich bewegen' ... < Y.awáP.-,
etc)"

=======

Thanks for translating the most relevant part.

Arnaud

=================
> > From root '-a-m?- (glottal stop_glottalized m)
>
> Weird nasal. I prefer /n,W/, nasal labiovelar.

> =====
> Arnaud :
> What makes you think *nw is less weird than *m?- ??
> I have never imagined something like *nw as a phoneme !?

You overlooked the comma. I write /n,/ for the velar nasal called eng.
/n,W/ is the labiovelar nasal. It corresponds to /kW/ and /gW/ as /n,/
to /k/ and /g/, /n/ to /t/ and /d/, and /m/ to /p/ and /b/ (or perhaps
/w/, in PIE).

Torsten

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

Arnaud

Ok got it.

 

I agree that this /n,w/ = NGw existed in the ancestor of PIE.

But It was already transformed as H2w = H3 in most cases when PIE became PIE.

 

Cf. the word "water, rain" *NG-u-t?-

Chinese *NG-u-t?-a "rain" (BeiJing yu3)

PIE H2w_t?-

But Semitic has *m_t?- "rain"

suggesting that this #m- could be from *NGw

(with loss of velar feature > m and NG-u- reinterpreted as NGw-)

 

I also consider that *me and He-gho-

most probably are the same root.

gho as evidenced by Chinese is NG-o

Hence instrumental form : NG-o-+ eH1 > NGw-eH1 > *m-e.

 

The similar process probably happened in Uralic

and it just proves nothing about Uralic and PIE "closeness" :

coincidence.

 

As regard *m? or *n? or l?,

they definitely existed.

 

In the Arabic rendition of Coptic place-names,

these "weird" phonemes are rendered as H + consonant.

Cf. Ba-Hn-asa

where Hn stands for Egyptian -n-.

Many examples.

 

Arnaud.

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