Fw: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale

From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 51005
Date: 2007-12-27

 
----- Original Message -----
From: fournet.arnaud
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale

 
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: swallow vs. nightingale

> =========
> Arnaud
> *ma? "water" (in general)
> *ngut? "rain"
> *s?ab "to flow like a stream"

I didn't know that. Where do those roots come from?
============
ARnaud (new)
Root ma? "water"
Pokorny maH2 : LAtin mâ-dêo "to be humid"
Arabic mâ? "water"
Coptic : moou [mo?u] < *ma?u "water"
http://www.metalog.org/files/crum/197.gif
Touareg ?amân or ?am?an "water(s)"
(This word has no singular form)
http://books. google.fr/ books?id= YRoJAAAAQAAJ& printsec= titlepage# PPA64,M1
> > La langue berbère page 64
This root does not seem to exist in Basque.
I guess from *ma? you should get <mi> in Basque.
I found nothing like mi "water" in Basque or Etruscan.
 
 
Root *ngut? "rain"
Basque ur "water"
PIE wed "water"
Arabic mat?-ar "to rain"
Chinese yu3 "rain"
Uralic cognacy status is unclear.
===================
I think there was a root *(a)n,W-/(u) n,W- "water"
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ Op.html
with various extensions
-l/r
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ Opr.html
-y
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ my.html
-t
http://www.angelfir e.com/rant/ tgpedersen/ pd.html
etc
which is loaned from some culture based on settlement on rivers, in
Europe probably LBK-Rössen
ARnaud (new)
If I understand you properly,
you are supposing that PIE speakers arriving in Europe
got a certain number of roots and words
from a pre-existing language, substrate in Europe,
And you are further supposing that this substrate is LBK-roessen ?
Is this correct ?

> ============ ========
ARnaud (old)
> 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.

So what you're saying is all /a/'s are eh2?
Arnaud (new) :
PIE inherited /a/ (= PAA /a/)
In PIE this /a/ evolved in different ways :
- in most cases : [e]
- when unstressed but lubrifiant : schwa [°]
(a in most languages but i in sanscrit)
- when followed by H2 : [a:]
- when followed by H1: [e:]
- Initial : H2a : #a-
- Initial : H1e : #e-
When the structure H1aH2 or H2aH1 occurs
then the result is the same as H1a or H2a
(second H erased : no length : coloring from preceding H)
There was no phonological constrast between /a/ and /e/
in earlier PIE.
Things changed later on in each specific language.
Arnaud

> > ============ ========= ======
>
There is â in the transcription.
I'll take your word for it. I don't read Arabic.
Arnaud (new)
I cannot believe you don't read Arabic.
I thought you could.
I cannot understand how you can :
- be unable to read Arabic script
- stockpile a lot of data on Angelfire
- support a Semitic-like substrate in western Europe.
You can't even check Semitic data by yourself
I still don't believe you.
Can you read Greek or Cyrillic ?
Arnaud

> ============ ========= ==
>