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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

>
>
>
> Where's the ablaut vocal in *kWis?
>
> ***
>
> It appears as *Ø in this word.

Funny, I don't see a *0 there. Don't you think it's odd that PIE would
have words with no vowels? Where did you *y go in the genitive,
ablative, dative, and locative forms of this root?

> 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.

Says who?

> *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:?

I'm not familiar with *ambHo:. But yes I think it's the same *bHi as
in *ambHi.

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

i.d. -*y.

>
> Do you not?

I don't see how analyzing it as *m + *i changes anything. Either way
there's no reason to believe that the *i comes from *y.

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

How do you arrive at *-u being 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.

Possibly true since there's a *dHe as well. In any case, that just
points to a *i suffix. There no reason to assume it was originally *y.

> 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?

Sometimes it's *e (quite often before resonants). But that just makes
my point. The reduplication always consists of CV- and never CC-.

> The feminine in related languages like Arabic: -ha.

The PAA feminine is *(a)t.

> 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.

Altaic *bi (< *mi as seen in Mongolian *min, Tngus-Manchu *mün)
Uralic *mV (vowel uncertain but Fennic points to *i)
PAA *ni < *mi (in verbal affixes)
Etruscan mi
PCK *muri (*u from labial assimilation)

> On the second: native PIE roots have the maximal form *CVC;

*C(e)yR-, *R

> must there be a root extension.

PIE is littered with roots of the form CVCC and CCVC with no evidence
of root extensions.

> Exactly as my theory states should happen.
>
> ***
>
> Your theory? This has been around a long time before 'you'.

Quite possibly. However I developed the idea independently.

> 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.

Are you not familiar with i- and u-stems? Let's look at the i-stems
(the u-stems are analogous).

The nominative plural ends in *-eyes. This makes perfect sense if the
*ey is from stressed *i as "my" theory states. Buy it makes no sense
if this is really a y-stem. The nominative plural suffix is *-es so
for a y-stem we'd expect an ending of **-yes. That's not what we see.
Let's look at the dative singular. The suffix is *ei. In my theory the
i-stem suffix should then be *eyei, which is what we see. In the
y-stem theory we should expect to see **yei, which we don't.

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

What do you propose?