Re: swallow vs. nighingale

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50971
Date: 2007-12-22

 
----- 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.
===============