Re: Laryngo delendum est

> ***
> 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_short.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
>

===========
Chinese is especially interesting
from the PIE point of view
because it provides a clear test
as regards -?- of -x- < *s

The word *syewH1 (as reconstructed
from Baltic with Hirt's law) is
reflected in Chinese as being Falling tone
This terminally precludes that H1 could ever be
glottal stop because in that case, we should expect
Rising tone.
The word *sneH1 is also borrowed and has
Falling tone.

This confirms my previous analysis based on PAA
that H1 is either a pharyngeal unvoiced (Hittite = zero)
or a velar unvoiced (Hittite = h)

M. Ryan
You spent maybe one or two hours inventing the above fancy
which is *useless*
because you work on the wrong premisses.
How long will it take until a spark happens in your head ?

Arnaud

===============