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

2012/5/13, Tavi <oalexandre@...>:

> Sure, there can be many linguistic layers in a given place, although the
> most ancient ones would only be detectable in toponymy or not detectable
> at all. But the fact is Celtic doesn't represent the oldest layer but
> one of the most recent ones, as there're older strata detectable.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I've detected PIE through toponymy and it's the direct ancestor of
Celtic in situ. My discussion with DGK is precisely on the correctness
of such a theory and on the presence of further substrates. I think we
can both redirect the discussion on this point to that thread.

>> You assume that 4th Millennium BC(E) laryngeal IE cannot have the
>> same reconstructed features of the last common ancestor of all IE
>> languages.

>> Tavi:
> Yes, because this "last common ancestor" was spoken many millenia
> before, possibly in the Gravettian (Villar).

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

"Because" is consistent specifically inside your model

>> I propose that its reconstructible phonemes are the same as
>> long as we can detect.

>> Tavi:
> Yeah, including Neogrammarians' "voiced aspirated", morpohology and so
> on.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Yes, of course. Breathy voiced / aspirated murmured, like clicks,
can go back to the earliest stages of modern human language. Note that
only IE languages can have /#DHR-/ word-initially: an innovation
according to typological Minimalism, but an archaism according to
Minimalism in diachronic phonological change

> Tavi:
> If you really want to gather evidence of older IE stages, I'd recommend
> you study other language families which were in contact with IE or
> genetically related to it, namely Altaic, Kartvelian, Afrasian (Semitic)
> and Tyrrhenian (Etruscan). I myself learnt a great deal from Bomhard (as
> well as other Nostraticists), in despite I disagree with his model.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
That's what I'm doing since 1989 (when I started to study Macrocomparativism)

> In Alinei's mind, in-situ-developments
>> start from Post-Proto-Italic phase
>>
> I'm sure you mean "Italoid" ("Italide" in the Italian original), which
> he places in the Gravettian (!).

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
I've translated Alinei's "Italid" / "Italoid" (in his words,
"Italoide" and "Ibero-Adriatico" / "Ibero-Dalmatico" as labels have
been all replaced by "Italide") into "Italic", which at the
phonological level is its perfect equivalent and is more widely known.

> The only difference is you start with
> an already differentiated PIE while he proposes an earlier diffusion
> with the first colonization by Cromagnoids.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
What? I start with an undifferentiated PIE. Chronology is now
exactly the same, because Alinei has abandoned since early 2011 any
idea of a pre-modern human language spread

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

>> Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> False, see Schrijver 1991

>> Tavi:
> Could you quote it for me?
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
Peter Schrijver, The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in
Latin (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 2, Series edited by R[obert]
S[tephen] P[aul] Beekes, A[lexander] Lubotsky, J[oseph] J[ohannes]
S[icco] Weitenberg), Amsterdam - Atlanta (Georgia), Editions Rodopi
B.V. [Printed in The Netherlands], 1991 [xl, 616 p.], ISBN
90-5183-308-3 (CIP).
See in particular pp. 486-504 (VI. Latin a of non-laryngeal origin. E.
Remaining instances of non-laryngeal a), rule *(C)CCCC > (C)CaCCC and
analysis of pandere 'to spread'

>> 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-/

>> Tavi:
> Forgive my ignorance, but I'd like a more detailed explanation.

I'm more ignorant, I just mean that if Germanic *xizd-o:n is related
to *xazda- you appear to interpret its */i/ from */e/
(*kes-dh(H-)o:n), so Greek kiste: must have its /i/ from Schwa
secundum (like pitne:mi), i.e. ks-tah2