From: tgpedersen
Message: 52552
Date: 2008-02-09
>Extra evidence: besides consonant stems, PIE has -i, -u and thematic
> 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.
>Nothing further to add. Except possibly that the scheme isn't mine, I
> >>>> 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.
>