Re: PS Emphatics

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re:Re: [tied] Re: PS Emphatics


>
> ================
> <3> does _not_ exist in the rest of PA (Proto-Afrasian).
>
> If Loprieno thinks it does, quote him. Do not put it in your own words
> because you get it all wrong.
> ====================
> I thought you had the book :
> Page 31 :
> Among the liquids, the original opposition between nasal *n, lateral *l
> and
> vibrant *r underwent a profound reorganization, not yet fully understood
> in its specific details, in which a role was also played by dialectal
> variants.
> PA *n and r were kept as Egyptian /n/ and /R/ - the latter being the
> phoneme
> conventionally transcribed 3 by Egyptologists [...]
>
> Looks clear to me, even though I am not a native speaker of English.
>
> Arnaud
> ===============

Well, I am a native speaker; and it is clear to be that you are not clear.

I will rhetorically ask what you should have asked yourself before you
attempt to approach the subject.

How many [r]'s do Orel & Stobova postulate for Hamito-Semitic?

Answer: one

What is the equivalent of Egyptian <r> on page 33 of Loprieno's book.

Answer: [r]

So what represents PA [r]? Egyptian <r> or <3>?

Secondly, even if Egyptian <3> was PA [r], which it is in part being PA
*ra/i as opposed to PA *ru which is Egyptian <r>, no distinction among
vowel-conditioned allophones of [r] was made in PA.

So, I repeat, <?>, which is a strictly Egyptian letter, does not exist in PA
as a letter or a differentiatable allophone of <r>.

Loprieno mentions a lot of fanciful ideas on the page you are fond to quote,
a lot of baggage from the early days when <3> was considered by the
"experts" to represent [?], [¿], [y], and a few others. I and Callender
helped to clear up that mess; <3> is regularly correspondent to PA <r> and
PIE <*r> and no other.

One of the more hilarious conceits was to regard <jb>, 'heart', as
corresponding to Semit <lib-> when a second-grader can see that PA ¿ib-,
'breast, bosom', is the likely cognate. That piece of trash scholarship
established the false equation Egyptian <j> = Semitic <l>. Loprieno should
really know better in 1995.

Both Egyptian <3> and <r> correspond to PA <l>.

***


> There are _no_ glottalized consonants in Egyptian; at an early date, there
> was [?] and [h].
>
> Glottalized consonants were voiced by the time we get to Afrasian, the
> parent of Egyptian.
> ============
> Loprieno p43 :
> Indirect evidence of the ejective ( My comment = glottalized) character of
> voiceless
> stops in Bohairic is also provided by a late medieval Arabic version of
> the apopththegmata PAtrum in Coptic script. [...] Coptic sioout > Arabic
> asyût?
>
> My comment Coptic -t- > Arabic t?
> Looks clear to me, even though I am not a native speaker of English. (Bis)
>
> Arnaud
> =============
>

***

p. 43 proves that even great men have feet of clay. It was obviously written
by the Mad Man of Chaillot, and makes absolutely no sense to anyone but
Loprieno and Fournet.

Egyptian <t> corresponds to Arabic <t> and <θ>.


Patrick

***


> ***
> Your suggestion, as usual, is of no value. PIE does not have vocalic
> "schemes" as do Semitic languages.
> Patrick
> ***
> It did not !?
> What is -o- in *dh_H1 ? sacer-do-tal
> What is o_â in Greek tomâ ?
>
> Some languages still make a use of vocalic schemes :
> What is Modern English drInk drAnk drUnk ?

***

If you do not know the difference between Ablaut and vowel schemes, drop the
question until you do. You are wasting my time.

***

> PIE did and some languages still do.
>
> I suppose you will try to explain
> that apophony is not vocalic schemes...
>
> Arnaud
> ===============

***

What is the vocalic scheme for a preterite?


Patrick

***