From: stlatos
Message: 62118
Date: 2008-12-17
>I've tried every way of giving an opinion differing from yours I
> On 2008-12-16 02:17, stlatos wrote:
>
> > If you believe that,
>
> I don't _believe_ anything here. I'm experimenting.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Don't draw hasty conclusions from superficial similarity.
Thalassa, whatever its origin, has -ss- from *-t- palatalised before a
historical *-j- (*thalat-ja); the Attic form is thalatta.
Would it be proper to say, "It came from k()y" or "You're wrong"?
Should I only write "dalágkhan : thálassan in Hesychius" and expect
you to assume I'm putting this ev. forth in order to disagree with
you? Should I say, "I could be wrong" when I don't think there's
anything that could be in dispute?
I'm not sure what kind of replies you want me to make. Also:
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 2. Although PIE is sometimes described as having only one fricative
(*s), the "laryngeals" (or at least some of them) were fricatives too.
In my opinion two or three "laryngeals" are required to explain the
known correspondences and ablaut patterns. All phonetic
reconstructions of those PIE phonemes are somewhat speculative, but my
personal preference is for a system containing a glottal fricative (or
"aspirate") *h (for what is often transcribed *H1) and a velar
fricative *x (for *H2 and *H3; perhaps a labiovelar fricative *xw for
the latter). Even a system with three fricatives (*s, *x, *h) would be
richer than that of Ancient Greek (s, h) and as rich as that of
Classical Latin (s, f, h).
Would it be proper to say, "If that's your opinion, then what about
voicing in *-H3o:n?" Should I assume you were "experimenting" only,
as above, and say, "You're just experimenting, give some evidence so I
can evaluate it".
And later:
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Of course the two approaches can be combined into a unified,
attractively symmetrical system:
>
> palatovelar velar labiovelar
>
> plain k^ k kW
> voiced g^ g gW
> aspirated g^H gH gWH
> fricative x^ x xW
>
> high i/j u/w
> mid e o
> low a
>
> The pattern looks very nice indeed, but it's worth keeping in mind
that we humans are instinctive pattern-matchers and tantalising
symmetry is one of the most common mirages resulting from self-delusion.
> The most likely fricative to cause the lowering and retraction of an
adjacent [e] is uvular [X], so it's tempting to assume that *h2 = [X]
and *h3 = [XW]. The pattern is now different:
>
> dorsal labiodorsal glottal
>
> plain k kW
> voiced g gW
> aspirated gH gWH
> fricative X XW
> approximant w h
>
> I use [dorsal] as a cover term for a range of articulations
including velars and uvulars (uvular fricatives commonly pattern
together with velar stops). This interpretation has the advantage of
not forcing all the "laryngeals" to be aligned with stop articulations
-- very convenient if you are happy (as I am) with a two-way
protosystem of dorsal consonants (*k and *kW, but no phonemic *k^).
Also, any system with aspirated or breathy-voiced stops can on
typological grounds be expected to include a phonemic "aspirate" /h/.
Now, how should I reply to this? Would "There were 3 velar series"
sound offensive because I stated it alone, therefore "as fact"?
Should I ask what possible evidence you had for no phonemic K vs K^?
How would you respond to someone claiming to be "happy with" K and
KW alone now? Would just giving evidence be enough? Would you say "I
think this" or maybe just "this indicates it might be possible that I
think it could be that"?
> Now the final problem: what evidence do we really have for the
phonemic contrast between *h2 and *h3?
> Greek prothetic vowels, triple schwa reflexes and different vowel
colours in *RH (Ro: vs. Ra:) are subject to so much dialectal
variation and analogical levelling that even a careful analysis does
not extract convincing evidence for *h3 as different from *h2. Beekes
(1969) was more optimistic than I am here, but the "triple
representation" has since been reanalysed e.g. by Lindemann (1982) and
the view that it is a Greek innovation has gained much support.
> If *do: is not *doh3- /deh3-/, what else could it be? The "o" timbre
occurs in the present tense (Gk. di-do:-mi, arch. Lith. duo-mi) and
deverbal nouns (Gk. do:ron, Slavic darU, Latin do:num 'gift'), and in
the Greek and Indo-Iranian aorist as well (Gk. edo:ka, Skt. ada:t).
One must remember, however, that verbs with persistent o-grade occur
quite frequently; some of them probably formed a separate class in
PIE, formally similar to the IE perfect and reflected in Hittite as
the "-hi" presents (cf. Hittite mallai : Lith málti, Gothic malan,
Latin molo:, etc.). We also have residual ablauting formations
elsewhere (most notably, Tocharian subjunctives and Indo-Iranian
aorist passives in -i like apa:di 'he fell') to demonstrate that the
pattern associated with the perfect was once applied more widely, and
that in fact there is nothing specifically "perfect" about it. A
possible original paradigm would have looked like this:
>
> *doh1-h2a(i)
> *doh1-th2a(i)
> *doh1-e(i)
>
> These forms match the conjugation of Hittite da:- 'take' (usually
assumed to be cognate to non-Anatolian *do: despite the semantic
difference; note the absence of h in the Hittite root):
>
> dahhi
> datti
> da:i
>
> After the falling together of conjugational types in non-Anatolian
IE new present and aorist formations appeared, based on underlying
*do:- < *doh1-, e.g. preterite *doh1-e > *do: remodelled as *(e)do:-t.
If someone had said, "There's no evidence for your claims" or
"There's no *deh1- anywhere", would that be argumentative? Would you
require them to add evidence or make no claim?
> The horn/cornu word
> and the *k^erh2- set are notoriously difficult to relate, so I'm
willing
> to consider the possibility that they are two different words (with
some
> secondary convergence) or at best two different extensions of a pre-PIE
> root (perhaps 'horn' as material, vs. 'a head (of horns/antlers)'?). I
> find *k^ren- easier to work with than *k^ern-, though of course I
can be
> completely wrong. We all are, most of the time.
I see no evidence of a root like *k^ren- or *k^ern-. *kY(e)r.n.os
'horned (animal)' is simply *kYer.+ plus the adj. ending *+n.o+.
Adding g specified 'straight', so *kY(e)r.Ngos 'straight horn', as
*petnos >> *pet-N-gos 'outstretched wing (in flight)', *swobhmos >
*swobh-N-gos > *sbhwoNgos 'straight mushroom = morel' > 'sponge' also
(from the resemblance).
PIE also had *kY(e)r.vos *kY(e)r.u+ 'round horn', which merged in
meaning but remained separate in form in Indo-Iranian. In the west
contamination created *kY(e)r.Ngu (with Ng > NN > N after r) so an
exact correspondence with a PIE can't be made.