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

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

> ----- 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.

No one has ever described it previously, as far as I know. I do not
expect it to be demonstrated by only one word, so I gave other
examples in Kh and closely related non-Indic, non-Iranian languages.

>
> 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.

There is no retroflection of s preceding u; u: > o does not occur in
Kh; the tone is not suitable for der. from a long V.

> ***

> *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?

What do you mean by 'unexplained'? I've given lists of hundreds of
rules before. For these examples there's some metathesis, and I
explain a few other rules, but is it necessary to say well-known
changes like kW>k or tt>st or ks>ks., etc?