From: stlatos
Message: 62130
Date: 2008-12-17
> On 2008-12-17 04:14, stlatos wrote:offense.
> > 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
> >I'm not objecting to your change of opinions, but to quick changes
> > 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, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-05-26 11:46, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Another Slavic Germanic word is:
> >
> > *kwors-to > Proto-Slavic *kwarsta > OCS *xvrastU 'osier', Russian
> > xvorost 'brushwood'
>
> > *kwors-to > Proto-Germanic *kwarsta > OE *hyrst 'bush'
>
> There's no Germanic *xwarsta- (I suppose this is what you mean). There
> are only reflexes of *xarsta- 'wickerwork, grid' and *xursti- 'wood,
> shrubbery' (OE hyrst derives from the latter). They are probably related
> to each other, in which case they should both be assigned to the root
> *kert- 'turn, weave', and analysed as *kort-to- and *kr.t-ti-. As an
> alternative, *xursti- (but not *xarsta-) could be related to *kWres- (as
> in Celt. *kWristo- 'wood'), but even so it's relationship with Slavic
> *xvorstU is difficult to maintain.
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-05-30 21:41, stlatos wrote:
>
> > Some words do have -st-; the order was probably tt>st>ts>ss. Some
> > words didn't have metathesis, or the order was restored at some
> > morpheme boundaries.
>
> Examples?
>
> *wid-tó- in particular, became *wissa- (Goth un-wiss, OE ge-wiss).
> I'm not aware of any -ss-/-st- variation.
>
> Piotr
You answered above with "There's no Germanic *xwarsta-", so simple
negative statements seem proper, but see below:
> > --- 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?
> 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?
Well, I think you were offended by much less, see below.
> <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.
When I gave examples to support the below, you didn't seem grateful
for bringing it to your attention:
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:
> --- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > Sean Whalen wrote:
> >
> > > No, rt can become rs. no matter what the
> > > environment; it's just optional. Later r > 0
> > before
> > > s. or T and s. > s^
>
> > To imitate your style -- No, it isn't just optional.
It seems you objected to my use of "no" even though you used a plain
statement above (and offered no evidence that kwa > xwa > xa couldn't
occur in Germanic, which I think you now believe) so it seems you can
say things are one way or another without having any evidence, but if
I do so AND provide ev. to back up my own statements:
> > Mayrhofer's
> > explanation of the rt/s^. alternation as
> > conditioned by the place of
> > accent has generally (though perhaps not
> > unanimously) been accepted by
> > the field. <m&s^.a-> is a compositional variant that
> > developed in
> > _posttonic_ positions:
> >
> > *n.'-mr.to- > *ámr.ta- > Av. am&s^.a-
In answer to m@...^a-/m@...@ta- and p@...^u-/p@...@tu- you threw them away
with analogy, as if a completely theoretical state in which rt/s^.
determined by accent alone definitely existed, as:
> > Your other examples simply conform to the rule: the
> > accent of Skt.
> > mártya- is initial and that of <mr.tyú-> suffixal.
> > Where's your free
> > variation?
In other words, when you have no ev. you can make statements of
fact, but when I have ev. like m@...^a-/m@...@ta- and p@...^u-/p@...@tu- (and
OP mars^iyu-) I have no ev. at all, and you can ask "Where's your free
variation?" to this, but I can't say "If you believe..." without being
told I shouldn't assume you believe what you wrote. Can you
understand why I wonder how I can make an objection without offending you?
> > Since
> > <s^.> is found instead of expected *hrt, the actual
> > posttonic
> > development of *-r.t- is evident: the rhotic portion
> > of &r < *r. became
> > devoiced, and since the following voiceless stop was
> > homorganic with it,
> > the two segments easily coalesced into a voiceless
> > postalveolar
> > fricative. No such coalescence was possible in
> > heterorganic sequences.
>
> This rule occurs in Avestan, not Old Persian. In OP
> there are forms like mars^iyu- and ars^a- (syllabic r
> > ar in most positions) without any possible
> coalescence of hrt; since Avestan has r.>0 before s.
> in a following syllable looking at only that language
> could be misleading.
>
> There are enough optional rules and conditioned
> variation in stems without analogical leveling in
> Avestan that I didn't think my rules would create
> controversy; I didn't know other theories were
> accepted as standard. I'm sorry that this combined to
> make my response seem seem as if I were trying to be
> argumentative for no reason.
You seem to have assumed I disagreed when I just wanted a plain
answer below:
> > 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:
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).
> > 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?
I didn't object to what you said (I think H3 = xW just as you said;
I don't believe *-H3o:n existed); I want to know how to object to it
according to your apparent rules for interaction on this list.
> > 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.
I didn't say that; I put it in () to indicate a possible use for it,
just as above (*sIrna, kárnos).
In Germanic, a
> horn is a horn, not a goat or a deer.
I didn't say it was; I said that in PIE there were many animals
given the same name as a particular body part and that there was some
ev. such as feather/bird still seen in historical IE languages.