Re: swallow vs. nightingale

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 50995
Date: 2007-12-24

 
----- 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
======