From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 57038
Date: 2008-04-08
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] RE: Priimary Stem Formants: =*H, -*i/y, *-u/w
> On 2008-04-08 00:33, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > Why is 'my' *CVH indivisble when yours (*gWa(:)H(2)-) is divisible?
>
> I don't claim that *gWah2- is divisible (or even transparently
> analyzable) in PIE terms, only that it is _ultimately_ related to
> *gWem-.
***
Piotr, if you do not know this is sophistry, then I will be surprised.
I said nothing about analyzable within PIE. I pointed only to a pattern of
final elements in *CVC roots that were reminiscent of very common root
extensions added to *CVC.
In order to 'relate' them, you must divide them. If you cannot divide them,
they are not relatable.
It is really that simple, and I believe you know it.
***
As I say in my article, PIE *gW in *gW-em- and *gW-ah2- may well
> reflect an older cluster. The words I discuss are presumably relicts of
> some pre-PIE derivational process. I accept such things whenever I find
> good eveidence for them. The case of *dr-eu-/*dr-em-/*dr-ah2- is rather
> convincing but in order to prove that e.g. *pleh1- should be cut up into
> *pl- and *-eh1- you'd have to present some real evidence rather than
> your personal opinion on what the ultimate building blocks of PIE words
> must have been like.
>
> Piotr
***
My Goodness! Shades of the very poorest reconstruction methodology! That is
what has made Proto-Caucasian such a pathetic enterprise.
What would you imagine for the original: *gWeuiH2m?
You can pick and choose what will be "retained', and what will suffer
execution at another Picaud's Law.
Frankly, I had not expected this as an argument from you; I missed it in the
article of I would have called you on it.
There is _absolutely_ no evidence for a variably resolved cluster that
violates every rule we know of PIE structure.
The constituent parts of *pla(:)H-, as you well know, would be likelier to
be *pele- and -*H(2).
But in this particular case, 'set into motion', my belief would be that the
pre-PIE form was *pAlá:-, naturally long. But let us not get into that
question yet.
Patrick