Re: swallow vs. nightingale

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

From: tgpedersen

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 1:01 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale

> Torsten :
> I think it's something like *(a)n,W-, and that -t is a suffix of
> whatever 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 :
> 1. There is not evidence for #(a)-
Torsten ,PIE *ap-, *akW- "water" etc

=========

Arnaud (new)

You are mixing together :

*ma? "water" (in general)

*ngut? "rain"

*s?ab "to flow like a stream"

 

It doesn't help

if you mix everything together

Arnaud

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

 > 3. Vowel length is enough to assert that some H was there in
> Latin. TT : Not if it's loan, for the second time.

> And vowel coloring as /a:/ is also a proof. TT : Not if it's a loan.

 

ARnaud (new) :

 

What is your scenario in case it were a loanword ??

====================
> 4. As regards */a/ in PIE, I consider /a/ and /e/ is the same.
That won't make them the same.
So I don't care if you write it /a/ or /e/.
Sloppy.
> I write it /e/ in PIE but it is worth /a/ in other proto-languages.
What is? /a/?
===========

Arnaud

Be careful,

You believe you speak about somebody else

It turns up you are talking about yourself.

 

As regards /a/ or /e/,

I consider so far that PRoto-Sapiens had only four vowels

which I write as *u *o *a *i.

In PIE, *a is written with grapheme <e> since tradition and Brugmann.

Equating *a and *e is not sloppy,

this is just the way orthodox PIE deals with inherited *a.

/a/ is a phoneme, in the sense this word has in structuralist saussurian phonology has : a unit in a system.

/a/ is [a] when in contact with H2, otherwise /a/ is [e]

When unstressed /a/ is schwa.

Arnaud

> ============ ========= ======
> 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.
Clicking 'afficher les images de la page' I get 'Eman, aman'. No â.
Same thing in the PDF copy.

===========

ARnaud

I respect you if you disagree with me

but I do not accept you cheat with data.

 

PAge 64 : eau : Arabic

Root : !_m_A_n

Vowels : a a

Result : !amân. : â is long a:

Arnaud

============
> long a:
> and a long a: in Berber always betrays a + glottal stop
> inherited short -a- usually is schwa.

Which long /a/?

========

Arnaud

Stop cheating

You are not the dumb Black Knight

somebody else is.

You are more something like the indomitable ice-berg break of Artic.

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

> Since there is the alternative that it is a loan, this us not all
> obvious.
>
> The only language that has loanwords from Semitic or PAA is Greek.
> I don't think *ma? is a loanword in Latin.

I do.

=======

Arnaud

what is your pre-historical scenario in case it were a loanword ?

 

===============
Arnaud (new)
> Long a: in Berber
Nope.

==========

Arnaud

Cf. page 64 : !amân

It is long.

 

How do you account for Touareg

!amân being long

and for

!am?an having an emphatic /m?/ ??

 

In case you miss my point,

These data prove that *m_? is the right form.

 

Arnaud

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

> Long a: in Latin
Loan.
> Long a: + glottal stop in Arabic.
> M + glottal stop in Egyptian.

> This is not an independent development
> but a clear cognate : *m_?

See above.

> > I don't want to sound ironic
> Oh yes you do.
>
> I don't want to
> but I have to say unpleasant things because we disagree.
> (so far about this particular point)
> ============ =======
Theo Vennemann, Gen. Nierfeld:
Europa Vasconica - Europa Semitica
http://tinyurl. com/2bpvyn
should contain most of his articles.
Torsten
===

Arnaud

Thank you for reference

but I will read Möller first

 

Arnaud

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