From: stlatos
Message: 70206
Date: 2012-10-16
>Look, just because one person doesn't think they're connected, don't keep me from saying it. This guy said about the same thing I did; bother him if you want to keep talking about it:
> 1) asrk: of course r/n alternation; in any case */gw/ *in Balles'
> etymology* DOESN'T have anything to do with Old Indic -k. Stop.
>>Skt. asr.k, asnás, Arm. ariwn (*esr.-io:n ?), , Grk. éar, OLat. asser, Lat.sanguis G. sanguinis, Latv. asins, TochA ysa:r, Hitt. e:shar, eshanasAD **hásx-ung, **hasx-úng-âs > *h1és&2r.(gW), *&1s&2n(gW)ósLatin sanguis (*[&1]sh2ángW-en-) is an n-stem derivative of the simplex.
> 2) a connection between /ogn/ and /ong/ is irregular from an IEThe verbs ending in -n- or -ny- (ie. manthano: , aldaíno: = make grow / nourish G;) almost always show only or also (depending on in which IE lang.) root-internal -n- in the present (ie. vinc- vs. victor), indicating metathesis in at least some cases. Individual IE lang. w metathesis are very common (ie. unda < *wedr/n- L;), incl. many in Arm. for n , r , y , etc.
> perspective; maybe they are cognate before PIE, but a PIE metathesis
> rule has counterexamples in every preserved sequence without
> metathesis. If You discover pre-PIE sound laws it's extremely good,
> but incompatibility with known sound-laws requires to operate with
> different chronologies, so everyone is happy
> 3) "it seems unlikely from other ev." is no objectionI gave one possibility, that could be right, but could have other expl. that I didn't want to get into. I'm objecting to your e/0/o w/o expl., among others.
> 4) IE alternations: if You mean morphological alternations, they have
> to be used until they can't explain anything more and then one has to
> reconstruct different forms for one word. If You, on the contrary,
> mean phonological alternations, You are operating in a different frame
> and so our discussion is useless, because we are dealing with
> different scientific objects
> 5) asser: I've written that YOU have given an explanation, so why do
> You critique that very explanation?
> Morphological and phonological alternations are competing explanations
> (Your sentence that morphological alternation explains less and is
> more complicated is a far-reaching utterance that should be based on
> much more evidence, otherwise it's just a respectable personal
> opinion); if phonological explanations imply optional sound-laws
> (therefore not PIE, but at best pre-PIE) they are by no way superior
> to accepted morphological ones
> 6) -i:s: to have a possible different explanation can never mean that
> any other regular explanation is false;
> chronology of attestation cannot imply necessarily that newer forms
> are innovations
> 7) word order: not 'red blood', but 'red as blood', therefore regular
> like any other substantive + adjective compound