From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55494
Date: 2008-03-18
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>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-).
>Miguel
>=================
>
>Why should this Sz. lengthening not apply
>to *yekwr.
1) Because it's a neuter.
2) Even if it wasn't a neuter, because it's yé:kWr and not
*yékWo:r.
=========
No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
The *description* of a theory
is not the *proof* of a theory.
Hammering the description
ever and ever again is not a proof.
Maybe, it relieves you
but it proves *nothing*.
You have not provided the slighest
beginning of an explanation for
Latin iecur and Skrt yakr
Which constitute one item
conflicting with your (refuted) theory.
Both Latin and Skrt display(ed)
a clear contrast e versus e:
If your (refuted) theory were right,
the e: is these words should have
been *replaced* by short e
for some reason.
It's not some blithe "shortening"
thru phonetic evolution.
There is no law for e: > e
in Latin or Sanscrit.
It's a replacement of e: by e.
What is your explanation for
this supposed replacement ?
Arnaud
========
>and *gwher ?
It might apply to Nsg. *g^hwé:r but hardly to the Npl. which
is consistently *g^hwé:res (Grk. thêres, Lith. z^vé:res,
-y~s, Slav. zvêrIje).
======
No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
Latin again has f-e-rox
with a short e
and this item constitutes
another refutation of your defunct theory.
You are just picking here and there
the items that accommodate your fancies.
and you repeatedly dodge the real
issues and the data that obviously
conflict with your fancies.
But you won't have peace
until you address the real issues.
Arnaud
==========
>***dhe:ghom does not exist
>Anatolian is ambiguous and does not
>permit to contrast any e from e:
>As you have repeatedly explained
>but failed to understand what it entails
>for your theory.
As I have repeatedly explained, Anatolian provides clear
evidence to distinguish between /e/, /e:/ and /eh1/.
===========
No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
You have explained that
Hittite always has e: which
doesn't contrast with
never-attested *e
Anatolian does not support your theory.
It's neutral.
The problem is
Latin ferox and iecur
and Sanscrit yakr
SHORT e in these words.
Arnaud
=============
>*steu
>Hittite isduwai has no e(:) at all (!)
>Greek steumai has short e (!)
Exactly! Being a middle it should have zero grade.
Middles with full grade vowel are Narten forms (with
original long vowel).
Present sg. staumi, stausi, stauti (*ste:u-mi, -si, -ti).
Learn about "Narten presents".
===============
No, M. Carrasquer Vidal,
This is completely circular.
You are trying to sell a ghost *e:
supposedly existing in a
reconstructed paradigm
That is nowhere attested.
You are invoking as a *proof*
something that is a *hypothesis*
What about learning some basics
about proof, theory, description
and hypothesis, epistemology, etc ?
These Narten Presents
only exist in the small group of
contiguous central PIE languages
where you pick up your examples :
Greek, Balto-slavic, Avestic,
Don't they ?
Your theory is fancy.
It's refuted by macro-comparative data
and it's unsupported even by IE data.
Arnaud
==============