From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 57508
Date: 2008-04-17
> From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>There is no distortion.
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
>> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson"
>>> <liberty@...> wrote:
>>>> No, there's no steady association. Pokorny lists only
>>>> *k^e:ibh- and *k^e:igh- beginning with that sequence
>>>> and meaning 'quick', but no *k^(H)e-.
> - edit -
>>> Of course, there is a steady association between *k(^)e:-
>> Now you write 'k(^)e:' when previously you claimed only
>> 'k^(h)e', thus giving yourself the freedom now to work
>> with any of 'k^e:', 'ke:', 'k^He:', or 'khe:'. How wide
>> is your net going to get before it's all over with?
> Why do you delete what I wrote so everyone cannot easily
> see that you have misunderstood it - without archiving?
> You are distorting my words for rhetorical reasons because
> you have no real data to offer.
> I have not widened anything. I have been consistentYou have not. Your initial claim (in Nr. 57236) was simply:
> throughout.
> I will say it simply so you can understand it:Without commenting on the substance of this explanation, I
> 1) roots that originally had *k^he- sometimes show up in
> Pokorny as *k^e:- because the languages which would show
> an aspirated voiceless stop are not always attested;
> 2) I wrote *k^e:- because even though the aspiration might
> not be attested, the vowel, *e:, _usually_ remains long;
> 3) so for practical purposes, the ideal *k^he:- will show
> up more often than not as *k^e:- in Pokorny;
> 4) this is important because the length is natural,
> compensating for the aspirate's losing its aspiration.
>>> (also *k(^)e:i-) and 'fast' as Latin 'citus' mightApt or not, it's a familiar term for the series that
>>> possibly suggest - from Pokorny's *ke:i-, 'set into
>>> motion'.
>> No, there are only _two_ associations, with the common
>> element being 'k^e:i', not 'k^e', not 'k^He', not 'ke',
>> and not 'kHe'. You're not free to just throw in *ke:i-,
>> which begins with a plain velar not a palato-velar, and
>> which doesn't mean anything like 'fast' in any case, as
>> motion can be slow just as well as it can be fast.
> First, there is no such thing as a palato-velar.
> Second, the examples given by Pokorny given under theIt isn't. Barring accidental omissions, what follows is a
> heading *ke:i- are, in the clear majority, referring to
> 'fast' or 'violent' motion. If anyone cares to refresh
> himself in Pokorny, they will be able to see that this is
> correct.
> So, this is the second misrepresentation.So you say. In fact Watkins takes the root to be *keih2-
> I called attention (but, of course, you missed it) to the
> condition that I would be dealing with roots. The
> correctly reconstructed root here is *k^he:-. The -*i is a
> root extension.
>> Moreover you may not even claim 'fast' for *k^e:i-, forYou're the one trying to outguess Pokorny by lumping his
>> we don't know that it yields any such meaning without the
>> addition of 'bh' or 'gh', as we find it. If it did,
>> Pokorny would already have made a separate entry of it,
>> as he wasn't shy about that sort of thing.
> Then Pokorny has organized his dictionary entries all
> wrong, has he not?
> If it tastes bad with sugar, and it tastes bad with salt,
> the chances are very good that it tastes bad.
> You want to outguess Pokorny. You have not got a chance.
> If Pokorny meant 'move', he would have written 'bewegen'Pokorny has 'in Bewegung setzen, in Bewegung sein'; that's
> not 'in Bewegung setzen'. How well do you understand
> German?
>>> I believe this is properly reconstructed as *k^(h)e:i-;It's glossed 'bewegt die Glieder, ist in Bewegung'; that's
>>> and without going into Nostratic data to support the
>>> point, the semantic connections alone with *k^e:i-bh-
>>> and *k^e:i-gh- should suggest the possibility of an
>>> initial palatal *k^ for Pokorny's *ke:i-.
>> So you feel free to change one construction to make it
>> more like another to which you, and you alone, are sure
>> it is related? It was reconstructed with a plain velar
>> for a reason, and you're not entitled to reassign it to
>> force it to fit your personal theory.
>> *ke:i- begins with a different sound than *k^e:ibh- and
>> *k^e:igh-, and has a different meaning, and that is all
>> there is to that.
> I guess your eyes got tired before they came to Old Indian
> <cé:s.t.ati>.
>> There is no "steady association" between *k^(H)e and theIf there is, you've altogether failed to demonstrate it.
>> meaning 'fast'.
> On the contrary.
>>> As for it being an unvoiced aspirate, *k^h rather thanYes: _he_goes_on_to_mention_the_variation_, and his data
>>> *k, anyone who has read Pokorny will be familiar with
>>> reconstructions like 1. and 2. *(s)p(h)el- where the
>>> notation indicates that the root occurs with or without
>>> *s-mobile, and without or without *(h).
>> Pokorny often has a legitimate reason for such a lumping,
>> and for which he offers real cognates as proof. You have
>> nothing comparable for your 'k(^)(h)e(:)(i)', which is no
>> more than a way to secure as many escape routes as you
>> possibly can.
> Pokorny lists *ske/e:i-, 'cut'.
> He then goes on to mention the word is attested also with
> *sk^, skh, sk^h.
> What you might pick up from this is that lengthened vowelsYou might; I conclude only that either *this* root had such
> can be shortened; palatals and velars can interchange.
> Obviously, you are unfamiliar with Pokorny's *(s)kek-,According to you.
> ;jump, lively motion'; this is the simple reduplication of
> *k^he:- with loss of palatalization and aspiration, and,
> in this case vowel length;
> and how would you explain OI <khajati>? Oh yes, stick in aBut we don't buy this oddball interpretation in the first
> 'laryngeal'.
>>> Thus, I think the the possibility of an unpreserved
>>> aspirated voiceless stop in *ke:i- is measurable; and I
>>> reconstruct *k^He:i-. The root extension -*i is what
>>> transforms *k^he-, '*deer', into 'fast.
>> There is no *k^he- meaning 'deer' upon which to make such
>> a transformation.
> I have explained this also. *k^em- (*k^he:m-), hornless',
> refers to the 'hind'.
>>> I propose that early PIE words for 'deer', like ourDavid is quite correct: you're allowing yourself a great
>>> 'hind', contained the segment *k^(h)e- so that *k^em-,
>>> 'hornless', should be regarded as a generalization of
>>> 'hind' rather than 'hind' being derived from 'hornless'.
>>> The sense 'fast' is the characterization of any 'deer';
>>> it can be augmented by derivative -*y as in *k^he:i- but
>>> is unaugmented in words like *ken-, 'exert one's self',
>>> where both palatalization and aspiration have not been
>>> reconstructed: properly *k^(h)e(:)n-.
>> 'k^(h)e(:)n' means 'k^he:n', or 'k^hen', or 'k^e:n', or
>> 'k^en'. Again you try to secure as much wiggle room for
>> yourself as possible.
> It is you wiggling not I.
>>>> This is your semantic-chain game again, this time goingDavid is correct on both counts. I have never seen him
>>>> from 'fast' to 'deer' to 'hind' to 'hornless'.
>>> As usual, you twist my words to serve your own rhetoric.
>> Twisting words isn't something I _ever_ do, so you are
>> lying when you say 'as usual'.
> You are a liar about lying, which is the usual pattern.
>>> I _do_ suggest a semantic connection between 'deer' andBut you didn't answer the legitimate objections.
>>> 'fast'; the connection with 'hornless' is through
>>> *k^(h)e(:)m-, 'hind',
>> There is no *k^hem-, *k^he:m-, or *k^e:m- meaning 'hind',
>> only *k^em-.
>>> not *k^he:-, 'deer'.
>> There is no *k^he:- 'deer', or do you derive that from
>> Pokorny's *k^ei- 'to lie down', on the basis that deer
>> lie down at least once a day, or do you derive that from
>> Pokorny's *k^ei- 'a k. of dark colour', on the basis that
>> some deer are dark, or do you derive that from Pokorny's
>> *k^e, for which see *ak^- 'to eat', on the basis that
>> deer eat?
> I knew you would revert to snide sarcasm.
>>> Do we not sometimes say: 'he's as fast as a deer!'?Another private theory?
>> Well I don't, but I'm sure somebody does. I am likewise
>> fully convinced that deer lie down, that some deer are
>> dark colored, and that all deer eat, but so what?
> The slot was filled. 'Bears' were named for their 'lying
> down' = 'hibernation'.
>> It's a neat trick yours: when one of your roots is shownTo fabricate is to create, to make, and you're certainly
>> to be fabricated, you just create three more to "prove"
>> it real, and when each of those is exposed in its turn,
>> you invent still more.
> "fabricated"??? Am I a forger?
>>>> Moreover, why not follow the shorter route available toIt also makes no difference to David's point. Whether
>>>> you, from *k^em- in its properly reconstructed meaning
>>>> 'hornless'? Horses are similiar to cattle and deer in
>>>> many ways, yet always hornless, and the insertion of an
>>>> 'e' and the elimination (or conversion to 'w'?) of 'm'
>>>> surely involves much less voodoo than converting 'aira'
>>>> to 'e'.
>>> If your data was correct, yes. But GIGO, from 'aira' the
>>> route is tortuous; from *ai-ra:, as II have demonstrated
>>> above, it is far less problematical.
>> No, because we have 'aira:' alone, or 'ai-ra:' if you
>> prefer, with the meaning 'grass', not 'ai'.
> It is Pokorny's segmentation, not mine.
>>> It is like when we propose *d in Language A -> *t inNo, it isn't. It's a bit oversimplified, partly of
>>> Language B. The first step is pure speculation.
>>> Additional speculation either confirms or denies the
>>> original speculation,
>> It's not additional speculation that confirms the first.
>> That's ridiculous. It is sets of systematic sound
>> correspondences in numbers larger than likely to occur by
>> random chance. See the article 'How likely are chance
>> resemblances between languages?' at
>> http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm .
> I saw it years ago. Total garbage.
> Like Ringe-aroud-the Rosie.At least one of Ringe's papers on the same subject contains