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

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

> --- 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 your *y go in the genitive,
> ablative, dative, and locative forms of this root?
>
> ***
>
> You do not see it? What exactly do you think Ø means?

0 is different from nothing.I see nothing in this root.

> > Because *w and *y are the only source of *u and *I.
>
> Says who?
>
> ***
>
> I do.

And I say they aren't. That leaves us at an impasse. Your word on it
isn't enough to convince me, and my word isn't enough to convince you.

> Oh, yes there is.
>
> What do you think -*y means in vebal inflection?

There is no *y in verbal inflection. Every IE language points to *i,
which might be a deictic element. Cf. Altaic *i, Kartv. *hi, Drav. *i

> ***
>
> > I suspect that -*su is a combination of -*s, plural + -*u (for *w(a)),
> > topical.
>
> How do you arrive at *-u being a topical?
>
> ***
>
> By seeing in used as a topical in other related languages, like kw,

Tw, sw,

> in Egyptian.

I don't know anything about a topical w in Egyptian, but I know that
Egyptian has a plural w. If the ending is to be analyzed as *s-u and
linked to Egyptian I think it's more likely that the *u is a relic of
the plural (PIE is not uniform is marking the plural with *s).

> Equally so, no reason to believe it was originally *i.

I think perhaps you're coming to see my point. Claiming that i and y
are allophones tells us nothing about the phonetics of the
archiphoneme. However, typologically almost every language on the
planet has high vowels. Every language that I've encountered (and you
couldn't come up with a counter-example) that uses partial
reduplication has a vowel in the reduplicating element. We may not be
able to say for sure if PIE had *i or *y (or both), but statistically
speaking it's far more likely that it was the vowel. it's also quite
possible that PPIE had both but that they fell together as allophones
in PIE.

> > The feminine in related languages like Arabic: -ha.
>
> The PAA feminine is *(a)t.
>
> ***
>
> Check again. You are wrong. -t- is a competitive feminine used for

euphonic

> reasons between vowels.
>
> ***

Not true. In Akkadian, for example, it is -t- and only gets a vowel if
the -t- is preceded by two consonants. A feminine in *t appears in
Semitic (including Arabic), Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, and Chadic.
Fossilized remnants may appear in Omotic. I don't know the origin of
Arabic feminine -ha, but it likely doesn't go back to PAA.

> 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)
>
> ***
>
> Some people will do anything to make a point.
>
> PAA *ni does _not_ come from Nostratic *mi.

I used to think so myself, but after rereading some old posts by
Miguel on Nostratic morphology I can see where it would make sense.

> It is part of another personal pronoun system: n-k as opposed to PIE

m-s.

The evidence for PN *nV for first person is pretty weak. PAA can have
*ni < *mi (note also Chadic *ma which tends to support *mV). The PIE
1st pl. forms are clearly back formations from *nsmes < *msmes. Altaic
has *bi and *min (both from earlier *mi) except for Korean and
Japanese which were both heavily influenced by the Sino-Tibetan
languages that have *Na for the 1st pronoun. Basically, all you have
left is Dravidian, and even then the *n^ is probably from a
dissimilation of labial nasals in the plural and then analogically
extended to the singular. As for *k in the second person I know of no
evidence for this (though there is some for a 1st person *k).

> > 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.
>
> ***
>
> Show me some. No *ng or *nk because these are mostly these residue

of velar

> nasals.
>
> Or loanwords.

From Pokorny:
*bHend sing, rejoice
*bHendH tie, bind
*dHers dare
*dhregH torment
*dHwer harm
*g^embH bite
*grem be damp
*gHrebH grasp
*lerd shrivel up
*mesg dive down
*ner (< *h2ner) life-force, man
*perg fear

Of course if I were to accept that *eu is actually *ew and *ei is
really *ey then we have tons more;
*prew jump
*pnew pant, breathe
*(s)kewt shrivel up
*snewd fog, foggy
*srewp dirt

>
> ***
>
> > 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.
>
> ***
>
> How very foolish of you. Build on what others have done. Do not

teach your

> grandmother to suck eggs.

How is it foolish to come up with an idea and then later find out that
others have come to the same conclusion?

> That is because the dative derives from *Hey, 'come to'.

The dative and locative probably both derive from that verb, which I
would reconstruct as *i. However, I'm open to the possibility that
PPIE had both *i and *y and that this particular verb goes back to
Nostratic *aja (or equivalently *aja) or perhaps *?aja.

> What do you propose?
>
>
> *e:, *a:, *o: *A(blautvokal)

I suppose that's better than /e o/.