Re: Laryngo delendum est

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] 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 premises.
> How long will it take until a spark happens in your head ?
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===============

***

You may not realize it, but there are a few other people on the list who
might appreciate my efforts.

I write for them since you seem to fully understand nothing of what I write.

The tone in xiu-4 is due to the -*s from the truncated reduplication; and if
Baltic had the metathesis, also, so what? The PIE form reflects the stem
un-metathesized.

I have pointed out why I do not believe the word has been borrowed by ST;
that would be teaching your grandmother to suck eggs! Ridiculous prima
facie.

One can lead a Frenchman to water but cannot make him drink. Natürlich! Er
trinkt nur Wein.

Your analysis is not confirmed by any of these data.


Too bad, too sad.


Patrick

***