Re: Is Basque IE?

2013/10/9 <dgkilday57@...>

>
>

(...)

>
> Etymology 93 involves an arbitrary addition to a root, PIE *pod-en- 'foot', and must be discarded.  (...)
>
>
>
> 219 involves irregular *-el- > *-il-, for *-el- should become *-al- by #16e.  (...) 207 (...) should be discarded anyway, since there is no formal justification for a bare feminine thematic stem acquiring the locative sense of the conjunction 'if').
>
>
>
> 115 involves an arbitrary vowel inserted between the PIE root *dHebH- (M-A 471) and the nasal extension of Skt. _dabhnóti_, which then surfaces as -i- in Bq. _min_.  Since this vowel was merely pulled out of thin air, the etymology must be discarded (...).
>
>
>
> 47 is one of the worst etymologies in the paper.  It entails irregular acquisition of accent by an initial pre-obstruent laryngeal, thus *ódn.ts (against Att. _odoús_, Ion. _odó:n_, gen. _odóntos_, ktl.) followed by arbitrary rhotacism, syncope, and nasal loss (*odints > *orints > *ornts > (h)ortz).  (...)
>
>
>
> 11, involving Bq. _beltz_ 'black', is necessarily irregular since *bel- should have become *bal- by #16e, and simple *bel should have become *bil by #16f.  (...)
>
>
>
> 150 is ad hoc by direct admission (*ges- > *gos-)(...)
>
>
>
> [46] The primary sense of PIE *h2erk- is 'hold back, contain' as in Lat. _arceo:_, _arx_, _Lupercus_.  Hitt. _hark-_ 'hold, have' is a secondary development and there is no plausible way to get from this to the sense of Bq. _hartu_ 'take, receive, get' without at least an inceptive affix.  (...)
>
>
>
> 54 involves arbitrary syncope and cluster simplification with irregular retention of pre-tonic *e, contradicting #22c(...)
>
>
>
> The final -u of Bq. _alu_ is unexplained, so 94 must be discarded (...).
>
>
>
> There is no evidence for Bq. *nu 'we', and the notion that speakers would have created a new 1sg. *ni from the anlaut of the 1pl. and the ambiguous 1sg. *i (while leaving the equally ambiguous 2sg. *i alone, and then discarding the 1pl. *nu itself) is "del tutto campata nell'aria" and 69 must bite the dust. (...)
>
>
>
> 114 involves arbitrary syncope and the -e of the Basque word is unexplained, so it must go(...).
>
>
>
> 86 involves irregular loss of *-u in going from *zuru to _zur_.  Moreover the combining form _zun-_ (evident in the compound _zuhaitz_) is unexplained.  (...).
>
>
>
> 99 involves improper assignment since the rhotic must be syllabic in *atr.so, thus it should have yielded *atraso by #13b, not *atso by #23b.  Of course, this is moot because #13b(...).
>
>

Bhr.:
93 a suffix *-en- is much less arbitrary than Your labeling it as
such, with the addition of an unjustified "must" (why? Does it run
against a Sound-Law?)
219 #16e already provides the phonological context for the output
207 please read the last line of the entry
115 "same" refers to "nasal", not to extension (I believe), so *-en-
is a nominal suffix
47 I'd compare Gk. ophry˜s and posit a prefixed form. Rhotacism is
predicted by #10; I find syncope in 24, 38, 54, 56, 114, 144, 149,
152, 162, 206, 227, 237, so it's certainly not ad hoc (if that
matters). Nasal loss should be explained as cluster simplification, I
think
11 would become regular by #13 *-r. > -er if one instead of #13 *(-)r-

> (-)ra- posits *-rH- > -ra- (which straightforward explains 144) and

modifies #3 *o, o: into *o, adding *o: > a in order to explain 108 as
*mro:g'hu-olo- (vowel insertion point is *mreg'h-, cf. Latin breuis)
150 maybe explained by ad hoc *e: > *o except before /r/ (being ad hoc
is no shortcoming until it isn't irregular)
46 Hittite harzi, harkanzi is primary, Latin arceo is a suffixed form
(*h2r.k(')-eye-), so 'hold' is justified. Arx can be a resultative
root noun, Lupercus has in any case *-o-, so no problem at all
54 Do You have counterexamples against syncope and cluster
simplification? Moreover, why do You consider *e as pre-tonic? The
contradiction is (arbitrarily) inserted by Yourself
94 It suffices a suffixed form rather than discarding the whole etymology
69 So You refuse the same explanation for Celtic as well, don't You?
(By the way, for what I can know the Italia sentence sounds "campata
in aria", not "nell'aria")
114 Syncope is implied by Trask himslef; for -e a suffix would
suffice, as in the case of 94
86 How do You analyze PIE *doru-? I can only analyze it as *dor-
(√*der-) + *-u-, so I'd posit a root noun for Basque
99 Right, better with a simple *-t- form like in Slavic.

I'm a simple reader of Gianfranco Forni's paper, as You are too. You
seem to be satisfied with attacks and playing with Your beloved domino
rules, I try to find additional or alternative explanations