Re: swallow vs. nightingale

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

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 4:51 PM

Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale

Torsten :

It's classic Pokorny without laryngeals. I think they are overused in
the present practice.

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

Arnaud

My own point of view is that they are an obvious improvement when compared to non-laryngeal description of PIE.

I think non-laryngeal PIE belongs to history (Before 1910) : it is obviously inadequate in close-to-be 2008.

The main (laughable) drawback of present-day practice is to believe that H1 H2 and H3 are "single" phonemes. They each are a class of proto-phonemes, not phonemes per se. H1 maybe two, H2 at least eight, H3 (I don't know : maybe 1 + 2 + 8 ?)

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

Torsten :

I think it's something like *(a)n,W-, and that -t is a suffix of
ehatever meaning. The length of the vowel a is the only evidence for a
laryngeal in PIE, which could have been caused in the loaning process.
I don't think there was a vowel /a/ in PIE.

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

Arnaud : (new)

1. There is not evidence for #(a)-

2. Do you mean -t?- (glottalized) is from -t- (voiceless) ?? 

3. Vowel length is enough to assert that some H was there in Latin.

And vowel coloring as /a:/ is also a proof.

4. As regards */a/ in PIE, I consider /a/ and /e/ is the same.

So I don't care if you write it /a/ or /e/.

I write it /e/ in PIE but it is worth /a/ in other proto-languages.

===========================
Arnaud (Old)
 Berber is ama:n with long â.
> The root for proto-berber is also *m_?

Torsten : Sez who?
========

Arnaud : (new)

http://books.google.fr/books?id=YRoJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA64,M1

La langue berbère page 64

 

eau : amân.

long a:

and a long a: in Berber always betrays a + glottal stop

inherited short -a- usually is schwa.

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

Torsten

Since there is the alternative that it is a loan, this us not all obvious.

Arnaud

The only language that has loanwords from Semitic or PAA is Greek.

I don't think *ma? is a loanword in Latin. 

> ==========
> Torsten :
> which is why the /n,W/ in a reconstructed *(a)n,W- "water" is
> nice: it may produce m- and n- and w-.
> ======
> Arnaud :
> It looks smart.
> The major trouble is it fails to provide *m_?-
> which obviously is the ground form for Berber, Egyptian, PIE,
> Arabic.

I haven't seen documentation for that claim for Berber. In PIE the
claim rests on a long /a/ which makes it suspicious. That leaves
Egyptian and Arabic. It could be an independent development.
======

Arnaud (new)

Long a: in Berber

Long a: in Latin

Long a: + glottal stop in Arabic.

M + glottal stop in Egyptian.

 

This is not an independent development

but a clear cognate : *m_?

Arnaud

> ============ ========= ======
> I don't want to sound ironic
Oh yes you do.

Arnaud

I don't want to

but I have to say unpleasant things because we disagree.

(so far about this particular point)

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

Torsten
Don't judge theories by their looks. You could do yourself a favor and
actually read Vennemann. Then you can fight his theories with facts
instead of sarcasm.

Arnaud (new)

I do not actually "fight" Venneman's theories.

And I am not sarcastic,

So far I have seen anything clear that requires something especially new.

requires = not explainable otherwise.

Maybe you are not selling the product clearly enough.

You probably already gave it

what book of Venneman do you recommend to read first ?

 

Arnaud

======