Re: Laryngo delendum est

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] RE: Laryngo delendum est


>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] RE: Laryngo delendum est
>
>
> > ***
> > So, you are saying that QuSheng = Tone -4; and according to Baxter that
> > comes from final -*s.
> > ========
> > This is true in Mandarin
> > QS > tone 4
> > All sinologists agree on that
> > It's not Baxter's own invention.
> > Haudricourt's idea dates back to the 1950ies.
> > Arnaud
> > ========
> > In the case of xiu-4, 'embroider', does Baxter actually write "*sjuwH"
> > is
> > the underlying form?
> > Or does he write <sjuws>?
> > Or yet: <sjuwHs>?
> > Patrick
> > ***
> > He writes for
> > AD 500 *sjuwH
> > and for
> > BC 1000 *sjiw(k)s
> > According to ShiJing Rhyme 116.2
> > This word rhymes with words
> > ending in -k- and a word in QuSheng hawH
> > That's the reason why Baxter hesitates
> > with ou without -k-
> > I think the best solution is *syew-H1-
> > with H1 being a pharyngeal unvoiced.
> > Arnaud
> > =============
> ***
>
> And what does Baxter consider his *H to be phonologically?
>
> Patrick
>
> ***
>
(added by PCR)

> ***
>
> And what does Baxter consider his *H to be phonologically?
>
> Patrick
>
> ***
>
> I once had a discussion with Baxter
> because I was skeptical that *s with the highest Hz pseudo-formants
> of all consonants could cause Falling Tone.
> It looked to me as a contradiction.
> He explained me that *s first becomes *x or *H
> (Cf. Rick's Spanish)
> then these spirants *x or *H
> can cause Falling Tone.
>
> As regards Rising Tone, caused by glottal stop,
> it's the relaxation after constriction that
> creates the interpretation that the tone is rising.
> In fact it's going back to normal after a blank.
>

***

This is an intrinsically interesting word so I am going to go into more
detail that you would probably prefer to investigate it.

The pre-PIE and pre-PST base, from which all these words are derived, is:

("http://geocities.com/proto-language/PL-Monosyllables.htm#SA")

*sa, 'sinew', to which

derivative -*yi was added: *sá-yi, producing 'cord', and activities done
with a 'cord': 'tie'.

This word became Pontic *sÁy, and PIE *séy, which as a verbal root appears
in IE as *séi/y-, seen in Pokorny as 3. *se:(i)- and *sei-, 'bind'.

The IE form *se:- is from a competitive form deriving from pre-PIE/PST
*sá-?a; Pontic *sÁ?, PIE *séH-, and in IE *se:-; it properly means 'bound'.

But stative -*?a was also added to Pre-PIE/PST *sá-yi, producing *sa-yí-?a;
this would have developed into Pontic *sy(Y)Á? and PIE *syéH, eventually IE
*sye:-, probably meaning 'sewn' but possible 'bound' (see below).

This word may actually have survived into IE if *sye:[u]-ro,
'brother-in-law(?)', can be related.

Instead of analyzing this word as *se:[u]-ro-, I think there is the
possibility that the better analysis is *sje: + wi:/iró-s, '*sje:-man',
whatever that might mean.

To pre-PIE/ST *sa-yí-?a, -*wa, indicating a set number of verbal repetitions
to achieve a goal, was added, with shifting of the stress-accent one
syllable to the right: *sa-yi-?á-wa; this became Pontic *sy(Y)A?Áw; this
means 'sew (together)'. This then became *siHéw in PIE and finally IE
*sye:w- then *syu:-

At 1000 BCE, the *late* pre-PIE/PST form could very well have been **syi?áw,
with, with pre-ST language-specific metathesis **syiwá?.

This would be in obvious approximate agreement with YOUR *syew-H1-.

The glottal spot /?/ may well be the factor that Baxter seeks to capture
with *k.

To account for Tone 4, which wants a word ending in -*s, I propose that
'embroider' is an intensive form of 'sewing'; and it would be natural for a
**syiwá?, 'sew', to produce **syiwá?-s[yiwá?], 'embroider'.

After truncation: **syiwá?s, 'embroider', very close to *sjiw(k)s.

And would account for Tone 4.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that the ST form appears to be a product of metathesis and
reduplication that is not found in PIE (to my knowledge).

There is no reason that anything we see in either ST or IE leads to a LW
explanation: pre-PIE/PST **syi?áw answers nicely for both.

As a result, except indirectly, this development does not speak directly the
the phonological nature of the phantom *H1.

Note that in my explanation, I required *H to do one thing and one thing
only in IE: lengthen the adjacent vowel.


Patrick

***