2012/5/12, Tavi <
oalexandre@...>:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> In my model (as in yours, I suppose),
>> PIE had split into hundreds of palaeodialects;
>> some of them later
>> coalesced into Irish IE, which in turn came to be part of
>> Proto-Celtic.
>> Tavi:
>> > Irish (actually Goidelic) must be diachronically younger than
>> > Proto-Celtic, as otherwise we'll have the same "anomaly" than
> Alinei's
>> > Romance being older than Latin.
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> I haven't written "Irish" or "Goidelic", I've written "Irish IE",
>> i.e. the PIE dialectal complex that was spoken in Ireland before the
>> consitution of the Celtic Sprachbund.
>> Tavi:
> But in that case, the entity "Proto-Celtic" would be as illusory as
> Neogrammarians' "PIE" (not to be confused with the real *paleo-IE*,
> improperly called "PIE").
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
(My model:) Proto-Indo-European spread across Eurasia. It split into
hundreds of dialects, each one with its own lexical details. Some of
these dialects developed common innovations, albeit preserving
idiosyncratic lexical items. The dialects which developed Common
Celtic innovations are the Common Celtic entity.
(Facts:) Latin spread across European (and Northern African)
countries. It split inton hundreds of dialects, each one with its own
lexical details. Some of these dialects developed common innovations,
albeit preserving idiosyncratic lexical items. The dialects which
developed, e.g., Rhaeto-Cisalpine innovations are the Rhaeto-Cisalpine
entity.
I can't see any difference between my model and the Post-Roman model.
This latter doesn't need any Empire to start or to exist; it works
with minimal inter-parish communication. A single
Proto-Rhaeto-Cisalpine never existed; Rhaeto-Cisalpine dialects
nevertheless exist and have been existing since, say, the 5th-10th
centuries AD. Rhaeto-Cisalpine dialects in 5th-10th centuries are the
Proto-Rhaeto-Cisalpine entity. It's in no way illusory. Therefore the
Common Celtic entity isn't illusory.
As for PIE, I identify laryngeal PIE with Palaeo-IE, you don't. We
already knew that. In your model, laryngeal PIE (you call it
'Neogrammarian PIE') is an illusion, in my model it isn't.
> Tavi:
> However, I disagree with your "continuity"
> model, because I think Ireland was colonized by Celtic-speaking people
> from the Continent (and possibly more than once).
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I didn't know. Well, thank you for this information, it's important
and I beg your pardon if I had wrongly supposed a less invasionistic
attitude
>> Nothing to do with Alinei's model. The problem doesn't exist
>> Tavi:
> Yes, it has, because yours is a "continuity" model.
You will be then a bit surprised to learn that Alinei, in a
critical review (QSem 2007) of some papers of mine, used the very
words you too have chosen.
Anyway, the difference between Alinei's Continuity and my
Groszindogermanische Hypothese is so great that I don't care of some
common remote assumptions.
> Tavi:
>> (...) your
>> > reconstruction looks like an ad-hoc one.
>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> What's the zero-grade of *kWes-?
>> Tavi:
> Which is *kWes-? I mean the actual data.
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You haven't answered (as usual). I'll give you the answer: it's
*kWös-, where <ö> is Schwa secundum, an epenthetic, at first
non-phonemic vowel inserted by anaptyxis in zero-grade sequences (see
Hermann Güntert, Indogermanische Ablautprobleme. Untersuchungen über
Schwa secundum, einen zweiten indogermanischen Murmelvokal
[Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft.
Herausgegeben von Karl Brugmann und Ferdinand Sommer. 6], Straßburg,
Verlag von Karl J. Trübner, 1916). If you don't operate with Schwa
secundum, then your etymology for Gk. kístē isn't coherent with that
for cassis.
I had already written "Pokorny 635"; if you don't have it, it
contains reference to Palaeo-Slavonic košь, Russian koš 'basket'
(beside Lat. qua:lus). Because of Lat. quallus, the root may have to
be re-written as *kWets- (cf. pullus), unless quallus is from
*kWös-slo-s (with normal Latin replacement of *-lo- through *-slo-)
from *kWes- (Pokorny's *kWas-).
>> Tavi:
> I don't know how something like *kWh2s- could possibly be a zero-grade
> "variant" of *kWes-, but perhaps it's because I'm illiterate on "PIE"
> algebra (i.e. symbol manipulation).
>
>
Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Since you didn't know Schwa secundum, you have confused *kWeh2s-
'cough' (LIV2 377, Pokorny 649) with *kwas- (*kWe(t?)s-) 'twist'
(Pokorny 635), so your insufficient knowledge (as you call it) of PIE
algebra affects not only laryngeals, but early 20th c. reconstructions
and therefore your sarcasm about an alleged symbol manipulation simply
confirms your negative attitude against IE studies, which we all
already knew (nothing new)