--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>
> At 1:31:10 PM on Sunday, August 7, 2011, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <bm.brian@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> You haven't actually addressed the assertion that
> >> *-mh1nó- is 'the only shape ...' and whatever arguments
> >> suppor[t] it; you've merely asserted a contrary opinion.
> >> And after what I've seen of your opinions, methodology,
> >> and judgement over the years, I've little reason to take
> >> any of them seriously.
>
> > That is not true.
>
> Don't be ridiculous: you've addressed neither the Tocharian
> etyma nor the arguments in question.
Why would you think that providing one piece of supposed ev. that someone else has asserted as "proof" requires me to evaluate that bit alone? Such blindness due to excessive specificity is exactly what I argued against w examples. It is solved by looking at many languages, exactly as I did. The ev. in languages with large preserved vocabularies and known sound changes shows only -meno- -mn- and so no -h1-.
Tocharian not only treats each h() differently in some positions, but has disputed changes in some environments, etc., making it unsuitable for any such evaluation. Between N or even before a nasal, h1 ( = xY) seems to become y/i/e , probably dependent on position w/in a word:
*xán.t.-xY-món.+ > *hantemö:n dis.> a:ntYeme > a:ñcäm (nom) TA; a:ñme = soul/self TB; *anTuma- > átum = breath OHG; æ:þm OE;
*xan.-xY-mY0n.+ > *hanemn+ >> *hanenmö: > *a:nelme > onolme = creature / living being / person TB;
(compare sim. in:
hoLm = wind Ar; which also treats each h() differently in some positions ( > 0 here), between N, etc.; also n-m > L-m dis., etc.;
)
* xYn.ó- > *yno- > *nYo- > ñom TA; énuma- Lac G; name E;
(compare sim. in:
*xWNo- > *wno- > *nWo- > maku TA; ónux -khos (g) G; nagl ON; nail E;
)
A similar rounding _might_ be seen in:
*xWorgWHn.o- > orkäm = darkness TA; ork(a)mo TB; orphnós = dark G;
and, though this is one of those "disputed changes in some environments" I mentioned, helps makes the pal. seen above for xY the expected change, not -a:-.
The only x() > a before a nasal might be for x (= h2) :
*gWr-x- > kra:märts = heavy TA; kramartse, kra:mär = weight TB;
though this is yet another one of those "disputed changes in some environments" I mentioned. Away from N there's plenty of ev. for x>a between C, so I have little reason to think anything except xY>e and x>a in that env. as well.
Even away from N, it's likely xY > y/i/e :
*gWHd.er.-xY-d.ó+ = flowing/wearing away/aging >
*gHd.wer.-w-d.ó+ > *gHwereddö: >> *en+kwërëttö: > *onkrotte > onkrocce = immortal TB; [o-o>a] onkrac TA;
though this is yet another one of those "disputed changes in some environments" I mentioned.
I'd say the ev., even just the undisputed changes, suggests my rec. The only disputed change that could provide ev. against it is the one you mentioned, which is exactly what I must look at other ev. to evaluate.
I'd say a there was a borrowing from an In-Ir language for -ma:M , etc., which is made most likely by geo. position, known history, other borrowings, etc. There's not even any real difference between the active and passive participles in Tocharian, so its age can't be proven to go back to PIE.
> > I gave plenty of ev. in favor of my theory and against
> > yours;
>
> I disagree, but it doesn't matter, since that's beside the
> point, which is that you very obviously have not addressed
> the specific problem mentioned by Ringe.
Being too specific allows for the possibility of error if what you're looking at underwent irregular dis., met., etc., contamination from a sim. word (as levis : *grevis), or was a borrowing from a sim. language.
W/in Tocharian, others' attempts to rec. onkolmo = elephant TB; [o-o>a] onkaläm TA; always include a PIE -m- , even though it's probably just contamination from the PT form of onolme = creature TB;
W/out -m- a better rec. such as *xan.kuLn.ó+ = tusked animal; can be made:
*xan.kuLn.ó+ > *xan.kuLón.+ > *a:nkolo > *onkolo > onkolmo [onolme <cont]; onkolmo = elephant TB; [o-o>a] onkaläm TA;
This depends on a broad view of animal names in all IE languages, and seeing both that -no- is much more common than -mon-, and that another word w/in Tocharian can provide the solution. A specific attempt evaluating just one word would not arrive at that solution.
> You have far more linguistic data at your command than I
> have (though as some real linguists have occasionally
> demonstrated, not so much as you think), so it not
> infrequently happens that I can't evaluate your evidence
> myself. When I can, I'm generally not convinced, so I look
> upon the rest with an exceedingly jaundiced eye. In short,
> I reject or simply fail to be convinced by most of the
> purported evidence that I *can* judge and therefore cannot
> but be doubtfully agnostic (at best) about most of the rest.
> This skepticism is reinforced by the fact -- obvious for a
> long time now -- that you don't really know what to do with
> your data: your methods are a parody -- sophisticated and
> unintentional, but still a parody -- of the real thing, and
> you remain resolutely blind to their serious flaws even when
> these are explicitly pointed out.
None are perfect, but my methods have no serious flaws. Most linguists are hampered by emotional attachment to older theories and rec., individual esthetic principles, and often downright craziness.