Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?

----- Original Message -----
From: "stlatos" <stlatos@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:52 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we discussing?


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jouppe" <jouppe@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:47 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Not "catching the wind " , or, what ARE we
discussing?

> How do you then derive Gmc. *sal-t- from IE *sh2el-?
>
> Jouppe
>
> ***
>
> Patrick:
>
> This is one of those relatively uncommon words that came into PIE
with a
> naturally long vowel: no 'laryngeal'.

I disagree. If there was no sx-, what caused s.- in Khowar s.òr
'salty'?

An x (H2) caused dental > retro. in others (khowàr; atsHaareetáa;
kAmvìri), approximately:


***

Patrick:

I do not know anything about Khowar so I am completely open-minded on the
validity of this phonological development, Where has it been _demonstrated_
and by whom, not just _asserted_ by you, whoever you are, O Nameless One.

But I find it unusual. What normally causes retroflexion is some
phonocontact with an influence like a back vowel or [w]/[W].

As for <s.òr>, my first hypothesis would be that it is derived from PIE
*su:ro- not *sa:l-; and your failure to consider this, tells us much.

***




*gWm,bH-x-ro+ 'deep' > *gumbr.0a > *gumbut.a > atsH gut.ùmbo


*pYaL-x-táx 'grey hair(s)', ì 'here' > *patxLáài > *pat.s.l.áài > kh
l.aypàt.s.i; kAmvìri pAlì

(-i is added to body parts, in kh twice, once after met.)


*pYì-pY(a)L-x-tó:n (and weak:)
*pYì-pY(a)L-x-tn+ 'moth, butterfly' > *pu-p(a)Lx-t.n.+ > *pxu-pL(a)n.t.+

*pxu-pLan.t.+ > *pHuLpaat.+ > *pHaat.uL+ > atsH pHaat.uríi

*pxupL,n.t.+ > *pupuLn.t.+ +ìk dim.

*pupuLn.t.ìk > *puLpun.t.ìk > kh pulmund.ùk

*pupuLn.t.ìk > *pupün.t.Lìk > *pün.t.puLìk > kv prüs^pùlik


for the kv met. of n.T. compare:


*pm:,kWttí+s 'fist' > *mm,kWstís > *muNks.t.i^z > atsH mùs.t.i, kv
*mn.us.t.i > mRü`s^t



***

Patrick:

All these long unexplained lists in your message! What do they prove?

No one reads them or has any idea of what you are trying to get across.

***



> It is a derivative of *sa:-, 'satisfied'.


I have *sax- 'fill', with 'full' > 'satisfied', etc., occurring in
some derivatives.

***

Patrick:

I guess this is Khowar again but it would have been nice if you had told us.

Do PIE 'laryngeals' show up as <x> in Khowar (?) on a regular basis?

Who says so?

And where do they say it?


***