From: tgpedersen
Message: 51002
Date: 2007-12-26
>I didn't know that. Where do those roots come from?
> > 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"
> > 3. Vowel length is enough to assert that some H was there inI think there was a root *(a)n,W-/(u)n,W- "water"
> > 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/?
> ===========
> Be careful,
> You believe you speak about somebody else
> It turns up you are talking about yourself.
> As regards /a/ or /e/,saussurian phonology has : a unit in a system.
> 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
> /a/ is [a] when in contact with H2, otherwise /a/ is [e]So what you're saying is all /a/'s are eh2?
> When unstressed /a/ is schwa.
> > ===========================http://books.google.fr/books?id=YRoJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA64,M1
> > Arnaud (Old)
> > Berber is ama:n with long â.
> > > The root for proto-berber is also *m_?
> >
> > Torsten : Sez who?
> > ========
> > Arnaud : (new)
> >
>
> > 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 : ArabicI'll take your word for it. I don't read Arabic.
> Root : !_m_A_n
> Vowels : a a
> Result : !amân. : â is long a:
> > long a:There is no â in the transcription.
> > and a long a: in Berber always betrays a + glottal stop
> > inherited short -a- usually is schwa.
>
> Which long /a/?
> ========
> Arnaud
> Stop cheating
> =======================See above.
>
> > 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 ?
> ===============OK
> 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.
> > Long a: in LatinThen make sure you're right first.
> 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)