Re[2]: [tied] Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-

At 6:45:35 AM on Saturday, February 9, 2008, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

>>>>> The word started out as *gWa-. When a glottal stop was
>>>>> added, it lengthened and preserved the earliest vowel
>>>>> quality -> *gWa:- (*gWaH{2}-). Without lengthening,
>>>>> the vowel reverted to the vowel of an stress-accented
>>>>> root syllable -> *gWé- to which -*y could be added,
>>>>> producing *gWéy-, 'live'; rather than your decomposed
>>>>> answer, just add -*m to it and -> *gWem-.

>>>> Nope. AFAIK the ablaut vowel was PPIE (=
>>>> proto-proto-IE) /a/. it became /e/, /o/ or zero, but
>>>> stayed /a/ before /x/.

>>> What do you mean by Ablaut vowel in PPIE?

>> *The* ablaut vowel in PPIE.

> Cryptic answers may satisfy your sense of humor but they
> hardly advance the discussion.

> Now let us review what you are saying:

> 1) let us use *A for the Ablautvokal

> 2) in PPIE, A* was /a/

> 3) in PIE, A* was /e/, /o/, /Ø/

> a) except when A* was /a/

> It is proper to call *A in PIE the Ablautvokal _because_
> it undergoes vowel gradation: Ablaut.

> The *A in PPIE does _not_ undergo vowel gradation (Ablaut)
> but we still call it the Ablautvokal.

> For what earthly reason? since it does not undergo Ablaut.

> See my little problem?

Not really. Torsten will correct me if I'm wrong, but it
seems reasonably clear that he's talking about a single
vowel ('*The* ablaut vowel') in his version of PPIE that is
ancestral to the ablaut vowel(s) of PIE.

>>>> Piotr wants to assume a third variant in -*w -? *gWew-;
>>>> from my perspective, the existence of this variant in
>>>> Proto-Afrasian leads to a probability that it existed
>>>> in PIE, and so his case is strengthened.

>> From my perspective the variation of the last consonant
>> in both the Semitic and the IE root tells me they're
>> somehow related. Thus they are probably loans.

> More oracular contradictions?

> Are the PIE and PA forms "related"?

> Or are they the result of loan?

*Somehow* related. OIc <koningr> and Finn. <kuningas> are
certainly related somehow -- namely, by loan at an earlier
stage.

> "OR" normally is exclsionary, is it not?

Depends on context: in mathematics the default is inclusive
OR. In any case, Torsten didn't use the word.

Brian