Re: Re[3]: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:47 PM
Subject: [Courrier indsirable] Re: Re[3]: [tied] Latin -idus as from dH- too


On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:15:05 +0100, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>Now,
>next point,
>you have suggested that
>*ye(:)kwr could be kindof allophonic
>of Germanic *lib

To recapitulate what I've said about */e:/:

There are at least three sources for PIE *e:
(1) Szemerényi lengthening of *-éCF (where F = /s/ or /h2/)
> *-é:C(F), in the nominative singular (*-s), the NA plural
n. (*-h2) and the s-aorist (*-s-).
(2) vr.ddhi in thematic derivatives, e.g. *me:ms-ó-
(3) "intrinsic" *e: (< **i:) in a number of roots (ablaut
*e: ~ 0), such as *yé:kWr.(t) ~ *ikWnós "liver", *dhé:g^hm.
~ *dhg^hmós "earth", *k^é:rd ~ *k^r.dés "heart", *ste:u- ~
*stu- "to praise" etc.
============
I think it's better to first focus
on your supposed intrinsic *e:

yekwr.
In view of Latin iecur
and Skrt yakr
with short /e/
we are still a long way afar
until we reach long e: in pre-PIE.

T-ghom
There is not a single word
supporting long e: here.
Apart from unclear neutral
anatolian data.

kerd
Same situation
not a single word supports e:

ste:u ??
This is not a recapitulation
this is a new word added.
I will look at it carefully,
you are a learned man,
I'll handle this word seriously.

Etc...
I'm looking forward to what
etc.. stands for.

It's nice but shallow to make believe
you have anything else in store,
Sorry, I don't believe in smoke-screens,
you'll have to provide real words
not just <...>
Please proceed,

Arnaud
===============

>The other day, I bumped in a Siberian
>word that could well the origin of *lib
>I haven't been able to retrieve it.
>Unfortunately.

In the word for "liver", positing **i: helps to explain the
alternation of initial *y- (Grk. hé:par, Skt. yákr.t, Lat.
iecur) and *l- (Arm. leard, Gmc. (E) liver). There is also
an alternation *kW ~ *p, which points to original *pW. The
pre-PIE paradigm would have been:

===========
I don't think *y and *l
are the same.
Your theory is already seriously
in danger of trying to grab for a straw
believing a straw is firm dry ground
Arnaud
==============


NA **lí:pu-an(t) > *lé:pWr.(t) ~ *yé:kWr.(t)
obl **li:pu-án(t)-âs > *l(i)pWn(t)ós ~ *ikWn(t)ós

The strange paradigm *yé:kWr. ~ *ikWnós was regularized in
different ways: MIr. i(u)chair, Slav. ikra "roe, caviar"
point to generalization of the oblique stem *ikWn-, but with
the /r/ of the NA; *yé(:)kWr, *yékWnos points to
regularization of the oblique stem (*ikWn- > *yekWn-),
followed by shortening of the casus rectus (except in Greek
and Avestan).

As to outside connections, it's interesting to compare
Aharon Dolgopolsky's root #104:

*l[ä|e]p.A "spleen"
(1) Ham.-Sem.: E.Cush.: Afar alefú: [pl. aléf-it] "spleen"
|| W.Chadic: Sura `l.lap, Kofyar láp, Montol, Angas lap
"spleen".
(2) Uralic *läppV (or *leppV) > Finn.-Ugr.: Cheremis lep& ~
lep, PPerm. *lOp > Votyak lup, SW Votyak lup, Zyryene lop /
lopt-, Upper Sïsola Zyryene lOp, Yazvian lop | Lapp. **ðapðe
(by assimilation from *lap-ðe with a suffix -ðe) > Norw.
Lapp daw'de ~ dað've, S.Lapp daabrie, Ume Lapp hàb'dee, Lule
Lapp tab'te:, Skolt Lapp täb.dd, Kildin Lapp ta:mmIp
(ta:m:(b)p(A_)) | Teryugan Ostyak LApatne | Hung. lép ||
Samoyedic: Forest Nenets Laps'a ~ rab-s'& "id."
(3) Altaic: Tungusic: Orok lipc^e "spleen".

================
Well
You can also add to the list
of unclear macro-comparative words
Omotic ?ap.ar "liver"

It's funny
Now that the internal PIE data
fail to support your idea
you are trying to submerge your own failure
into an ocean of macro-comparative data.
You are a quail trying to flee away
when the danger is one meter in its back.
It's too late, man.

Sorry, Dear Miguel,
But you are more competent than me
within PIE framework
You might outwit me within PIE
now that you tried to fly out,
you are in more serious danger.
You're naked, and it already shows.

All this gesticulation and agitation
is a clear sign
you have already understood your theory
is dead
I give you until next sunday to
acknowledge complete failure
You are a brilliant learned man,
It's no use humiliating you,
you failed to prove your wrong theory,
why don't you just acknowledge
a courageous and honourable defeat ?

I will look at your ste:u proposal.
It gives you a minute
to breathe before the bell
rings the last round's start.

Arnaud
===================