Re: Cern

On 2008-12-17 04:14, stlatos wrote:

> I've tried every way of giving an opinion differing from yours I
> know how. You seem to have objected to my stating of my opinion
> without qualifiers such as "I believe", "I think", or maybe "I feel",
> so I'd like to know how you want me to disagree without offering offense.
>
> It's hard to know what to do by myself, since even when I agree with
> what you said you've objected.

Oh dear, does it make you unhappy? I change my views quite often, and of
course I make mistakes like any normal human being. I do not aspire to
infallibility. You are in no way obliged to agree with anything I say.
We are here to exchange ideas, not to win converts.

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.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?

You said nothing on that occasion, as you were not a list member yet.
Yes, yes, I forgot to consider the possibility of *-kj- (which, I admit,
was quite sloppy of me) and I was probably unaware of the Hesychian
gloss at the time (one never stops learning new facts). But note also
that the "*-tj- or *-kj-" question was of little importance in the
context of that discussion. The issue was whether <atla:s> could be
related to <tHalassa> just because they sounded similar. *-kj- rather
than *-tj- would only have strengthened my point about the <-ss-/-tt->
not being comparable to the <-s>.

If you had been taking part in that exchange, and if you had corrected
my mistake, do you think I would get offended, or what? <dalágkHan> is a
very interesting and persuasive piece of evidence, and I suppose I would
have been extremely grateful for bringing it to my notice.

> I'm not sure what kind of replies you want me to make. Also:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.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".

So what? Of course I was experimenting with a more restricted system and
I said in so many words that it was my personal preference. The same
goes for the number of dorsal series; there are still many IEists who
for various reasons reject the three-way division. I think I took that
idea from Meillet, Kury?owicz and Szemerényi -- all of them serious
linguists. Since the time I wrote the postings you quote (which was
several years ago) I've abandoned both positions. Why? Because I found
out that they untenable. It's _now_ my considered opinion. However,
other people remain unconvinced, and the evidence that I found decisive
somehow fails to win them over. I will not demand that they should be
tortured and burnt at the stake for being recalcitrant heretics.

> 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+.

Well, I don't see much evidence for the bare root *k^er-, or for
*k^r.no- being primarily an adjective used of animals. In Germanic, a
horn is a horn, not a goat or a deer. I see _some_ evidence for *k^ren-
in Germanic *k^r(e)n-tes- > *xrenþa/iz ~ *xrunðiz- (as for the
structure, compare Skt. srotas-, OPer. rautah- < *sreu-tes- or Gmc.
*kelþa/iz ~ *kulðiz- 'child' < *gel-tes-.

Piotr