Re: hoopoe

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] hoopoe


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> > Semitic t. may be caused by
> > the fact the vowel is u.
>
> =============
> Starostin databases lack three cognates
> of *tup "to (over-)stuff, to fill up"
>
> Arabic t._b_&, t_b_z and t._f_H
>
> Arnaud
> ============
> That, IMHO, is the key to understanding PAA phonology.
>
> In Egyptian, for example, your beloved D is the (probably palatal)
> counterpart to <'> which derives from *t?s/ts + u.
>
> ==============
> Maybe you should be in bed
> instead of writing this.
>
> ? is from ?
> D [t?] I think is not.
>
> Arnaud
> ===========

***

Arnaud, Nostratic glottalized /t?s/ and aspirates /ts/ coalesced in Egyptian
to /ts/.

<D> was, I believe, pronounced /tsY/ -> /tS/ while <'> began as /ts/ but
became probably /¿/ at an early date (probably through /?/).

I never said <D> was /t?/.

Nostratic /t?/ and /t/ coalesced in Egyptian to /t/.

Egyptian <d> and <t> represent a pair analogous to <D> and <'>.

In the case of <t>, I think a glide from the following back vowel in
Nostratic produced /tW/ which became /T/ (theta). So Egyptian had <d> /t/
opposing <t> /T/.

***

>
> Whether a consonant was followed back vowel or not (indifferent to whether
> the other member of the set was *a or *i). seems to have been very
> important.
>
> ========
> Only in the case of Pre PAA *u,
> I remind you of my system :
> PAA *a = PIE *e
> PAA *i = PIE *i
> PAA *u = PIE *o
> Pre-PAA *u > emphatic = PIE *u
> Arnaud
> ===========

***

You need to emend PIE to pre-PIE.

PAA *i/*a/*u = PIE *A (*e/ *o/ *°/ *Ø)

While Nostratic /u/ first caused retroflexion (Dravidian), retroflexion
became "emphasis" in PAA, the commonest development from which was
glottalization.

***

> For Egyptian, I will first list the *-a/*-i for, then the *-u form:
>
> 3--------r
> p--------f
> d--------t
> k--------T
> D--------'
> H--------x
> S--------X
> q--------g
> z--------s
> j--------h
>
> A few make no discernible distinction: b, w, m, n
>
> Patrick
>
> ===========
>
> You may have a point for some cases :
> Voiced consonants are not emphaticizable in Egyptian.
>
> I believe in :
> k --- q
> t --- d
> s or z --- dj
> H --- 3
> sh ---- 3
>
> Arnaud
>
> ============

***

Not sure what you have in mind here.

<3> = /r/; no relationship to /S/

ditto <H>

stick with <D> not <dj>, <D> is Manuel de codage for net representations of
Egyptian

<k> is a velar stop; <q> and <g> are velar nasals.


Patrick

***