Re: On Greek thalassa 'sea'

2013/1/30, stlatos <sean@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>>
>> 2013/1/29, stlatos :
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Since the obvious epenthetical plosive is voiced /d/, I fail to
>> >> understand
>> >> how could it be that we get a voiceless aspirate unless through a sort
>> >> of
>> >> double sound shift by which one would expect at least /ph/ if not
>> >> anything
>> >> more instead of /p/ of -pos
>> >
>> >
>> > There are many words showing t/dH alt. before r:
>> >
>> >
>> > vártra-m S; vart = shield Os; vs
>> > várdhra-s = strap/girdle/belt S;
>>
>> two suffixes; if they have common origin, it's */th/, not */d/
>>
>
>
> So the dif. between:
>
> varatra:- = strap, várdhra-s = strap/girdle/belt S;
>
> isn't the -a-, but two suffixes -tro- and -dhro-? I doubt it. If this alt.
> is apparent within roots AND suffixes, then -tro- and -dhro- would be rel.
> just as andrós and ánthro:pos .

*Bhr.: sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand Your argument

>
>
>> >
>> > árthron = joint G; vs
>> > artus -u:s L; ard -u- = order Ar;
>>
>> Armenian /rd/ < */rt/
>
>
> I took care to separate those showing t from dH; the lower line has artus
> & ard, vs the upper line with -th-.

*Bhr.: You're right, but these are merely different suffixes to the
same root *h2ar-; morpholexical, not phonological, "alternation"

>
>
>>
>> >
>> > tetró:konta Dor G; cethorcho OI; vs
>> > quadrá:ginta: L; kHaRasun = 40 Ar;
>>
>> This isn't before */r/ because there's */w/ between */t/ and */r/
>>
>
>
> So, if:
>
> quadrupe:s L; cátus.pat- S;
>
> exist it means quadru- < kWetwru-? I doubt it; met. ur>ru seems likely.

*Bhr.: You should have then mentioned quadrupe:s, because there's no
metathesis in quadra:ginta (not quadrá:ginta, by the way; the Romance
accent's shift follows the palatalization of /g/).
Metathesis only "seems" likely; then please tell us its conditioning context

>
>
>> >
>> > dragan OE; draw E; vs
>> > trahere L;
>>
>> Different roots
>
>
> No way.

*Bhr.: Who says that? You? Why?

>
>
> ; You can't base a sound law on such forms, at most
>> they can be the same before PIE, just like English foot and pedestrian
>> aren't transformation of the same synchronically underlying form
>>
>> >
>> > þragjan = run Go; vs
>> > trékho: () threkso: (fut) = run G; dredh = turn/twist/revolve Al; daRnam
>> > =
>> > (re)turn Ar;
>>
>> Different roots
>
>
> No way.

*Bhr.: An alternation can either be a sound law or an illusion; if You
don't let it become a sound law, You have simply highlightened a
phonological opposition.
You are evidently a specialist in Historical Linguistics and the
alternations You're so fond of may indeed (except for ánthro:pos) be
clues for an internal reconstruction of a foregoing stage of PIE, but
You apparently prefer to play the rôle of the amateur as long as You
press everything into (post)PIE history, without realizing that, since
the only crucial criterion of truth in Comparative Linguistics is the
regularity of sound correspondences, once You throw it away You
destroy every possibility of discussion and reduce any theory -
including Your one - to a mere chat.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> > ané:r andrós (g) anéres (p) G; vs
>> > ánthro:pos G; [analogy as if an- = not/bad ?] dró:ps Mac;
>>
>> This was the demonstrandum
>>
>
>
> Everyone without something against optionality or a crazy theory can tell
> they're from the same root.

Bhr.: No.
ánthro:pos means "human being" (male and female) and stresses a notion
of species;
ané:r means "male" (human and non-human) and stresses gender (sex).

An etymology of "human being" (male and female) as "having apparence
of male (even non-human)" is grotesque. But of course You like it
precisely because it's so lovely irregular, with its alternations...

>
>
> Other C can show the same, like:
>
> émbruon G; bhru:ná- = embryo S;
>
> [ok>o:] dúal = lock of hair MIr; tagl = a single hair Go; = hair in horse
> tail ON; dHraál = markhor's hair Achar;
>
> gutsá- \ guccha- = bunch of flowers S; grùts = bunch of grapes Khow; gHrútsa
> = wild strawberries Achar;
>
>
> Also notice, esp. in Ind-Iran., that r alt. 0, so gutsá- vs. grùts,
> showing that these all come from opt. r. > R ( > G > 0 ) where tR > dHR,
> sim. to tx > tHx .
>
>
>

*Bhr.: Please don't mix up things! Remember that You're (hopelessly)
arguing for an EPENTHETIC /d/ becoming unvoiced and aspirated (or vice
versa, which isn't the same).
And, by the way, who decides what's alternation and what's opposition?
You? You don't offer any criterion to verify Your statements. How
could we reply if You're the only One who can distinguish alternation
from phonological opposition? Do You realize how unlimited is Your
claim?