From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52035
Date: 2008-01-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] IS PIE * DERU EXCLUSIVELY INDO-EUROPEAN ?
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> In my opinion, the changes you attribute to a possible *d-prefix are
better
> explained as the result of phonological processes.
Then why are they so irregular?
***
Well, I think we all work on the premise of regular processes.
But, some combinations of factors (stress-accent, vowel quality and length,
articulation position) are so rare that they occur very infrequently; and
the effects the cause are apt to be regarded as anomalies even though a
complete understanding of all the contributing factors would reveal a rare
but regular process.
***
> /n/ is the apical nasal corresponding to the voiced apical stop /d/.
>
> Denasalize /n/, perhaps for dissimilation, and you get /d/.
>
> Denasalize an alveolar /n/, and you are liable to get an /l/.
Are you suggesting that PIE had phonemic apical and alveolar nasals.
***
No, but I am suggesting we all make articulatory position changes due to
vowel and consonant adjacency. Combine /d/ with a back vowel, and you will
get an articulatory position further back in the mouth that the frontmost
position associated with a front vowel. Non-phonemic.
***
> There are absolutely no infixes in PIE. The one reputed example is the
> suffix -*nV, which, in certain cases, is metathesized to a position
before
> the final consonant of the root.
Possibly. My guess is that the *w and *y prefixes would have undergone
metathesis, just as *d does in a number of Greek words.
***
Guess not.
***
> Any word that shows an initial vowel in PIE must be reconstructed
with a
> preceding laryngal: *H. If there is a true variation between initial
*kV and
> *ØV, it may be a case of a dialectal hardening of the laryngal,
namely /h/.
But why the irregularity?
***
Much as we swear by regularity and try to maintain it, there are always
going to be some phenomena that we cannot adequately explain. Sometimes, it
is through a lack of knowledge of all relevant factors. Sometimes, perhaps,
we just cannot recognize the relevant factors.
My hypothesis is that genetic differences between groups affect
articulation. One group may experience a certain lack of ease in pronouncing
apicals at the tooth-ridge and feel no strain producing them at an alveolar
position. Eventually, all apicals will shift to an alveolar articulatory
position with ripples throughout the rest of the phonological system.
***
> In other cases, we simply coincidentally have words of _similar_
meanings
> beginning with *d- and *n-.
Postulating a *d prefix solves all of these problems in one fell
swoop. This prefix wins by Occam's Razor.
***
Postulating God is evil solves the problem of explaining the world's messy
disorder but is philosophically a poor solution to the question.
Remember, please, Occam's Razor is meant to prefer a simple solution to a
complicated one _only_ when both solutions apparently adequately explain the
problem.
As Piotr pointed out more eloquently than I, only one of the examples
qualifies phonologically as a candidate for the prefixation of a simple
/d/-.
Assuming a /d/-prefix is simple and possible but not adequate because no
other valid examples have yet been brought forward: therefore, unlikely
based of the data provided.
***
> For prefix status, I should have added that we be able to isolate the
> meaning of the prefix: any ideas or what these purported prefixes mean?
This isn't really necessary. Sino-Tibetan has several prefixes with no
discernible meaning. Yet we know they existed. PIE and Proto-Semitic
have numerous suffixes (root determinatives) with no discernible meaning.
I'm willing to hazard a guess though. I suggest that these prefixes
are all remnants of noun classes (verbs would agree in class with
their head noun). That's very speculative, I admit. However, if I can
stray into the world of Nostraticism for a moment I would point to the
PAA affix *t which indicates feminine gender. PAA *t normally
coincides with PIE *(a)t and PAA *t' with PIE *d, however, according
to Bomhard in PAA affixes lose their ejective feature. I'm tempted,
therefore, to propose a Nostratic *t' noun class marker (it needn't
necessarily indicate feminine gender). I'm really only at the
beginning stages of my research in this area, but if I'm right there
should be evidence for this noun class system in other Nostratic
languages. However, that's a discussion best left for Nostratic
oriented groups.
***
I believe in regularity; and I think that Sino-Tibetan prefixes can and will
someday be assigned 'meanings' if even simply just as noun classifiers.
One difference between my system or correspondences and Bomhard's is the I
do _not_ believe in the co-existence of Nostratic *t? and *d.
For me, the apical series is *t? *th *t?z *ths.
I have found that Nostratic *? = PIE *d and PAA *t;
Nostratic *th = PIE *t and PAA *Þ.
The pertinent feminine ending is PAA -*h (in Arabic, simplified to -â) which
corresponds exactly to PIE *Ha, i.e. -*a:.
Arabic -*t, virtually identical in meaning though originally collective
rather than feminine, is from PAA *t? which yields PIE -*d seen in the
derivational suffix -*id.
Why a collective? Our macho ancestors apparently denied women the same
individuality as men; cf. the pejorative use of 'womankind' and
'Frauenzimmer'.
On your Sino-Tibetan noun classes, I will start you off with a few guesses:
m-, human; a-, female; p-, flat things; r-, countable things; d-, body
parts; u-, round things, etc.
Patrick
***