Re: Ir. cas(s) and IE models (was: Ligurian)

2012/5/12, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> (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.

>> Tavi:
> And most important, Romance dialects also incorporated *substrate
> loanwords* from the indigenous languages which were replaced by Latin.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Sure, really very important. On the other hand, you have to admit
that there must have been a first layer (with any substrate before it)

>
>> 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:
> I call it an "illusion" because it doesn't represent the "last common
> ancestor of all IE languages" but it's rather a tranversal section
> (although far from being synchronical) through the last stages of the IE
> family. Thus it's *absurd* to identify it with the real paleo-IE.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You assume that 4th Millennium BC(E) laryngeal IE cannot have the
same reconstructed features of the last common ancestor of all IE
languages. I propose that its reconstructible phonemes are the same as
long as we can detect. This is by no way absurd and you can star this
epithet as many times you desire, this won't change the state of
affairs

>
>> 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:
> Anyway, what those "continuity" models, either yours or Alinei's, have
> in common are:
> 1) assertion of "in situ" development of historical IE languages
> 2) negation of language replacement

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
False. N° 1 is only mine. In Alinei's mind, in-situ-developments
start from Post-Proto-Italic phase

>
>> > Which is *kWes-? I mean the actual data.
>>
>> 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).

>> Tavi:
> AFAIK, modern PIE reconstructions abolished the "schwa secundum" and
> replaced it by h2.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
False, see Schrijver 1991

>
>> If you don't operate with Schwa
>> secundum, then your etymology for Gk. kístÄ" isn't coherent
> with that
>> for cassis.

>> Tavi:
> Are you telling me that /i/ in Germanic *xizd-o:n- and Greek kíste:
> comes from an anaptytic -h2- in the zero-grade variant?

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Of course not, see above. I'm telling you that Germanic *xizd-o:n and
Greek kíste: can be related only if you postulate that Gk. kíste:
(beside having its -t- from a different suffix) has /kist-/ from
*/kst-/