Re: Latin -idus as from dH- too

On 2008-03-15 19:10, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> To make clear the situation for anybody here:
> ==============================================
> 1. Both Piotr and Miguel's abandonned (implicitly) 2 days ago Mrs.
> Olsen's theory (as it was presented by Mrs. Olsen) => after both said
> for years 'how impressed they are about this theory' => you can find
> their old assertation on this forum too
>
> 2. But none of them wrote this explicitly here...as usual...

I can't speak for Miguel, but as for me, I haven't changed my mind about
Olsen's theory. I still like it.

> 3. Then : they have tried to improve this theory (in fact only
> Miguel) with a new version of it => trying to eliminate the cases
> that didn't fit with the rule by adding different other rules:
> - vocalisation & non-vocalisation of laryngeals (that was at Olsen
> too: and I was waiting for them to arrive there also...)
> - stress position (Miguel's supposition)

Improving and fine-tuning earlier models is precisely what science is
mostly about. What Miguel has suggested is an additional structural
constraint on Olsen's rule.

> the intention is to eliminate all the cases that Mrs Olsen theory
> cannot cover at all

I plead guilty as charged: I like Miguel's proposal since it improves an
already attractive theory.

> 4. Next I showed them that:
> ph2te'r and dHug2te'r , accented on the last syllables, are in
> contradiction with Miguel supposition

... as you (mis)understood it.

> 5. but they invoked that the vocalisation of laryngeal didn't
> trigerred the pre-aspiration

It was part of Olsen's original formulation of her rule. Miguel and I
didn't conspire to invent it.

> 6. Against this I showe them that in:
> -> in PIE dialectal times a vocalized laryngeal /h2/ has induced
> an aspiration in dHugh2ter (g>gH)

You have shown nothing of the kind. The aspiration is not "dialectal
PIE" but strictly Indo-Iranian. If you claim otherwise, the burden of
the proof is on you.

> -> and that even without this I cannot see any difference
> between the vocalized h2 in p&x-ter or dHhu-g&s-ter and the non-
> vocalized h2 of max-ter regarding ' a supposed metathesis' x-t>t-x
> because this vocalisation was donme by adding a prop. vowel (in these
> 2 contexts BEFORE the laryngeal)

Your failure to see the difference is your own problem. Even if you
swear on the Bible that the only possible realisation of vocalised *h2
is [&x], it's just your personal prejudice.

> 7. Here hey both started to talk about all the languages in these
> world other than PIE

How do you know what PIE sounded like? How do you now that *&2 was not
an actual syllabic fricative or, say, a vowel with a non-modal
phonation? For your information: there are IE languages with glottalised
and pharyngealised vowels too.

> and Piotr placed the aspiration of dHugh2ster 'very late'

You mean *dHugh2ter- > *dHughItar- > duhitar-? Did I really say the
aspiration was "very late"? Where? I said it was Indo-Iranian (which
could mean, say, 2000 BC). It's older than Grassmann's Law in
Indo-Aryan, at any rate. But it's still branch-specific, not PIE.

> In general they are saying that the fact that we don't see anyway
> this metathesis is due to the fact that we are in a context where is
> normal not to see it...for a case where this metathesis didn't
> happened at all
>
> They are not able to show any example where this metathesis really
> took place...(each such example has an alternate reasonable if not a
> better etymology)

What other reasonable etymologies have you got for unaspirated vs.
aspirated stops in the instrumental suffix, for example?

> So they prefer to talk in what Contexts this metathesis didn't appear
> when we are in the situtuation that this Metathesis didn't appear AT
> ALL
>
> Quite pure sophism ....
>
> I hope that I made a good resume for you...

Ouch! You have exposed our lies and demolished out pet ideas -- and all
that with nothing but Capital Letters and Rhetoric. Very impressive.

Piotr