Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-

----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: Re:Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: The meaning of life: PIE. *gWiH3w-


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> > I think we can identify all (or at least the great overwhelming
> majority of)
> > *CV roots in PIE: *me, *no, *g(^)he, etc.
>
> Let's not forget the interrogative root *kWi.
>
> ***
>
> You surely know that the root in Pokorny is listed under *kWo-,
*kWe-. That
> certainly looks like *A(blautvokal) to me.

Where's the ablaut vocal in *kWis?

***

It appears as *Ø in this word.

***

> Especially so since suffixes of the major variations are known from
> elsewhere: nominal genitive -*y(a); feminine -*Ha (not *kWia: but)
*kWa:; a
> nominal topical in -*w(a); in *kWu: (cf. *te, 'you', *tu, 'you'
(topical).
>
> ***
>
>
> > If we see -*i/*u or -*y/*w appended to one of these, then it is
sure to
> > be -*y/-*w because PIE has no derivative suffixes in *V;
>
> What about the i-, u-, and o-stem suffixes of nouns?
>
> ***
>
> The -*i and *u stems derive from -*y and -*w; the -*o stems are from an
> earlier shift in the stress-accent to indicate imperfectivity in the
nominal
> idea.

On what do you base the assumption that i- and u-stems were based on
*y and *w?


***

Because *w and *y are the only source of *u and *I.

***

> ***
>
> The are also
> numerous suffixes in *Ci and *Cu which make more sense as CV suffixes
> than CC suffixes.
>
> ***
>
> Yes? What are a few in your opinion?

*su locative plural
*bHi instrumental plural et. al.
*ti and *dHi which form substantives and adjectives
The athematic singular primary endings

***

So, for example, you do not connect *bhi with *am-bhi and *ambho:?

Almost all PIEists think that -*mi can be analyzed and -*m + -*i, i.d. -*y.

Do you not?

I suspect that -*su is a comination of -*s, plural + -*u (for *w(a)),
topical.

In the cases of -*ti and *dhi, we can plain *t and *dh functioning in the
same manner, virtually. It is really a no brainer to suspect a suffixal
addition of -*y > -*I to both.

***

> ***
>
> Also reduplicated forms having a *i vowel make more
> sense than reduplicated forms with a *y consonant.
>
> ***
>
> Not sure I know exactly what you are saying here.

The reduplicated form of CVC is CiCVC. Is there any language in the
world that reduplicates CVC with CXCVC, where X is a consonant?

***

I suppose if we looked hard enough we might find one.

But for reduplication, is the vowel always *i? Hmmm?

***
> ***
>
> > though, of course,
> > there are some *CV's like -*Ha(:).
>
> And even some in VC like the feminine *eH2 and *iH2.
>
> ***
>
> Those are incorrect reconstructions of those affixes, IMHO: -*Ha:
> and -*y(e)Ha:

Where's the evidence for the suffix initial laryngeal?

***

The feminine in related languages like Arabic: -ha.


> > Thus *méi-, 'my', is properly *méy-.
>
> Or better yet *mi > *mai > *mei under stress. Also *mi > *me before
> resonants.
>
> ***
>
> No, I do not think so: *mi under stress -> *mí; I do not believe a
position
> before resonants changed any *mi to *me.

What are we to make of *mene then? Why do other Nostratic languages
point to *min? Why are there no PIE roots of the form *C(e)yR or *C(e)wR?

***

You will have to be more specific for me to give a meaningful answer.

On the second: native PIE roots have the maximal form *CVC; *C(e)yR-, *R
must there be a root extension.

***

> > Any root that has the form *Céi/uC- must first be analyzed as having
> the
> > root *Cey-/*Cew- to which the root extension -*C has been added.
>
> Or first analyzed as *Ci or *Cu which became diphthongized under
> stress. Some roots of this form may go back to *Ceu or *Cei as well.
>
> ***
>
> An oft repeated argument that makes no sense:
>
> 1) in word positions where we expect stress-accent, we find *CéiC-; in
> position where the stress-accent has shifted: *Ci-;

Exactly as my theory states should happen.

***

Your theory? This has been around a long time before 'you'.

***

> nothing you have said
> warrants a belief that in an earlier time, the syllable, which was
> presumably stressed for your idea to work (*Cí), was expanded to
*Céi _under
> the same stress conditions - unless you want to argue for a post-stress
> syndrome.

Note also that in i- and u-stems the *i and *u of the stem suffix
undergo diphthongization when stressed. The alternative is to assume
that they are really ej- and ew/ow-stems. I don't see what's gained by
doing that.

***

If you are not going to detail specific cases of the generalization, you are
wasting my time and yours.

***

There's also the typological argument. It's extremely rare for a
language to have less than three phonemic vowels. I prefer a
reconstruction of /u i a e/ which is quite realistic. More so than a
system like /e o/, /e a/, or /e/.

***

That is not a representation of the vowel inventory I propose.

> Sayin' it iz eezy, stinkin' proovin' it iz xard.

Proofs are for mathematics. Science has to make do with agreement with
observation and simplicity.