From: tgpedersen
Message: 52680
Date: 2008-02-11
> I will go through this once more in greater detail than I did forTorsten.
>I think you too often settle with sematics which is 'not unsuitable'.
>
>
>
>
> PPPIE had the forms: *Ci. *Ca, *Cu, *CiC, *CaC, and *CuC as roots.
>
> during this stage, two factors could lengthen the vowel of both root
> forms *CV and *CVC:
>
> 1) the presence of an aspirated consonant before the vowel:
>
> a) *thi -> *te:(C); *nha(C) -> *la:(C); *shu -> *so:(C); *rhi(C) ->
> *re:(C);
>
> 1)) notice the front and back vowels were lowered;
>
> 2) the residue of laryngals and pharyngals, *H, preceding or
> following the vowel:
>
> a) *CiH -> *Ce:(H); *Ha(C) -> *(H)a:(C); *CuH -> *Co:(H);
>
> ***
>
> PPIE (Pontic stage) transformed the first series into *CYa(C),
> *Ca(C), *CWa(C).
>
> where *Y and *W are glides;
>
> PPIE syllables containing long vowels were retained unchanged.
>
> ***
>
> PIE simplified the first series to *CA and *CAC
>
> where *A is the Ablautvokal: *e/*o/*Ã.
>
> The long vowels were retained.
>
> In PIE, we have a natural vowel inventory of *A, *e:(H), *a:(H),
> *o:(H)
>
>
> ***
>
> IN PIE
>
> A root has the form *CA (e.g. <me>, 'I/we') or *Ce:, *Ca:, *Co:
> (really *CVC), and finally *CAC.
>
> The monosyllabic roots in PIE *A are well-known; any other root must
> have the form *CV: (e.g. *pe:-) or *CAC; for this purpose, *w and *y
> are consonants: e.g. Pokorny 2.*réw-, which means 'roil up'.
>
> To roots, root extensions may be added: *réu-gh-, seen in OS rügi,
> 'rough pelt'; as can be seen from the OS derivative, *réu-gh-
> meanves something like 'tangled hair/fur', a not unsuitable name for
> a cereal grain.
> Because PS and PIE are related through Nostratic, we can look to HSConfirmation of? In my world, that root is a loan.
> (Orel & Stolbova) for confirmation.
> Root #2129 is *rog-, 'cereal'. In a number of cases, we find in HSYou're on thin ice yourself.
> (My Afrasian) that vowel contractions foreshadowing processes we
> will later see in all Semitic languages have sporadically
> begin: th *o of *rog- probably should be written *o: because it is
> the result of a contraction of *a/iwa. I have detailed many examples
> of PIE *gh corresponding to HS *g at my website.
>
> Whether you will ever look to see them or not, perhaps others will.
>
> Thus, I consider HS *ro(:)g- to be equivalent to PIE *réugh-,
> 'tangled hair/fur', a description of 'rye'.
>
> To *réugh- the formant -*yó was added which took the stress-accent
> from the first syllable and put it in zero-grade, meaning whatever
> the result of the Ablautvokal, in this case *é, that result
> disappears: *rughyé-.
>
> We can learn that, in this case at least, *u was not a PIE vowel but
> merely an avocalic form of *w. Why, because *CAV is _not a
> permissible root form (*reu-/*rei) whereas *rew- and *rey- are
> (*CAC).
>
> At a time subsequent to these changes, a tendency to retract the
> stress-accent to the root syllable came into operation: *rúghyo-.
> the final *é reverting to *o upon removal of the stress-accent.
>
> This discussion started out with your scoffing at the correspondence
> of vowels in PIE because _you_ could not see how PIE *ú in
> *(w)rúghyo- could correspond to the à in Thracian brÃza. Pokorny
> gives you all the information it should have taken to figure this
> out for yourself: he reconstructs (*wrughya:) as the parent form.
> Whether by Umlaut or metathesis, an original Thracian <ú> has become
> <Ã> (through *ü[?]); these kinds of exceptions to the rules do not
> overturn any rules.
>
> It was grossly negligent of Pokorny to reconstruct this root as
> *wrughyo- when all listed derivations go back to *rughyo- except the
> Thracian cognate - if indeed it be a cognate.
> There are so many possible explanations for attaching an initial βThat was too easy.
> that I will not attempt to speculate; as the HS form is with *w(a)-,
> I think that we can be almost certain that the initial β is a
> strictly Thracian phenomenon.