--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-03-13 14:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 1) first I doubt regarding the idea to put h3 outside from h1 and
h2 =>
> > this supposed 'a well known nature of PIE-s h1, h2, h3" => that
for
> > sure is not the case today ...
>
> What do you mean -- today? By now, all PIE laryngeals have
disappeared,
I wanted to say that "Today => Nobody knows exactly the nature of
laryngeals...."
II.
> but if you yourself use different indexes for the three of them,
they
> were surely different consonants, and if you have a natural class
> involving three phonemes, there will usually be another natural
class to
> which only two of them belong, thus ganging up against the third.
A very general remark that served to nothing.
More General for you :
we could have C3_1 + C3_2 + C_3_3 = 3 + 3 + 1 = 7 distinct
classes in total
These classes are:
h1
h2
h3
h1 h2
h2 h3
h1 h3
h1 h2 h3
Now remains to choose who are the two-s against the third?
Why not all three? And why not each by its own?
I hope that I clarifies now why a generality like "which only two
of them belong, thus ganging up against the third" served to nothing.
III.
> In
> Hittite, *h2 and *h3 (dorsal fricatives) are reflected as <h(h)> in
many
> positions, while *h1 (probably just a glottal glide) is always
lost.
1) "probably just" IS THIS SCIENCE?
2) If you want to use a "probably just..." and the "Hittite case" to
justify a metathesis of h1,h2-t > t-h1,h2 => better to renounce
from the begining.
> If
> *h3 was voiced (and there's some serious evidence that it was),
then *h1
> and *h2 might have patterned together as voiceless.
So to resume:
- "If h3..." and then
- "h1 and h2 might..." and
- "if h1 probably just ..."
THAN
=> "we have a metathesis for h1/h2-t but not h3-t"
Bravo, Piotr!
IV.
> > 2) Anyway: you can check and see that my examples were limited to
h1
> > and h2 and in addition I quoted exactly she's own derivations
(not to
> > work with examples that she didn't give)
> > But 'Just for the record:' barba:tus (with t- (sic!)) has an h2
> > inside, isn't it? and is quite an old word viewing its Balto-
Slavic
> > cognates.
>
> Eng. bearded could also be considered a cognate, but the formation
is
> too productive to be dateable.
If each productive formation cannot be dateable, than no PIE
reconstruction is possible. Are you aware about the logic of the
argumentation taht you have used?
Next, I refuse to consider Latin barba:tus 'a recent formation' or 'a
non-dateable one' when I have Lithuanian and Slavic counterpart all
of them reflecting *bHar(z)dH-eh2-to
And all these 'for a single reason' : 'only' to continue to support
Olsen's theory despite this evidence
I prefer to say that "Olsen's theory is false" and to
keep 'barba:tus' on its right place as "(at least) a PIE dialectal
formation"
As for your information: Olsen herself treats barba:tus as an old-
formation and proposed a 'morphological restauration'=> better to use
her argumentation in this case, I think...
V.
> It's like arguing that Eng. was/were
> can't be due to Verner's Law, since there are no other traces of VL
in
> the English verb system.
This comparisons from English to Latin and finally to Hittite that
made references to complete different aspects served finally to
nothing: is a completely ad-hoc parallel...usually used when no
direct arguments can be added.
> If you want to find traces of the "Olsen preaspiration", you should
look
> for them among residual, partly obscured forms, such as Skt.
ti:rtHá-
> 'passage' < *tl.h2-tó- (cf. Lith. tìltas 'bridge, plank').
>
> Piotr
I will start to find 'traces' (some of them dubious too) when clear
evidences of -t- => like that one of barba:tus will be well explained
by Olsen's theory
and when Olsen or somebody else will indicate with logical arguments
why a dH(e)h1- formation cannot account for....SOLIDUS (morbidus,
putidus, etc...) when anybody can well see that the dHeh1- inside
SOLIDUS => CRIES BY ITSELF
Marius