Sorry, resending to correct link.

PCR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: "CYBALIST" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>; "NOSTRATIC-E"
<nostratic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:13 AM
Subject: [nostratic] [tied] RE: Laryngo delendum est


>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] RE: Laryngo delendum est
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] RE: Laryngo delendum est
> >
> >
> > > ***
> > > So, you are saying that QuSheng = Tone -4; and according to Baxter
> > > that
> > > comes from final -*s.
> > > ========
> > > This is true in Mandarin
> > > QS > tone 4
> > > All sinologists agree on that
> > > It's not Baxter's own invention.
> > > Haudricourt's idea dates back to the 1950ies.
> > > Arnaud
> > > ========
> > > In the case of xiu-4, 'embroider', does Baxter actually write "*sjuwH"
> > > is
> > > the underlying form?
> > > Or does he write <sjuws>?
> > > Or yet: <sjuwHs>?
> > > Patrick
> > > ***
> > > He writes for
> > > AD 500 *sjuwH
> > > and for
> > > BC 1000 *sjiw(k)s
> > > According to ShiJing Rhyme 116.2
> > > This word rhymes with words
> > > ending in -k- and a word in QuSheng hawH
> > > That's the reason why Baxter hesitates
> > > with ou without -k-
> > > I think the best solution is *syew-H1-
> > > with H1 being a pharyngeal unvoiced.
> > > Arnaud
> > > =============
> > ***
> >
> > And what does Baxter consider his *H to be phonologically?
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > ***
> >
> (added by PCR)
>
> > ***
> >
> > And what does Baxter consider his *H to be phonologically?
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > ***
> >
> > I once had a discussion with Baxter
> > because I was skeptical that *s with the highest Hz pseudo-formants
> > of all consonants could cause Falling Tone.
> > It looked to me as a contradiction.
> > He explained me that *s first becomes *x or *H
> > (Cf. Rick's Spanish)
> > then these spirants *x or *H
> > can cause Falling Tone.
> >
> > As regards Rising Tone, caused by glottal stop,
> > it's the relaxation after constriction that
> > creates the interpretation that the tone is rising.
> > In fact it's going back to normal after a blank.
> >
>
> ***
>
> This is an intrinsically interesting word so I am going to go into more
> detail that you would probably prefer to investigate it.
>
> The pre-PIE and pre-PST base, from which all these words are derived, is:
>
> ("http://geocities.com/proto-language/PL-Monosyllables_short.htm#SA")
>
> *sa, 'sinew', to which
>
> derivative -*yi was added: *sá-yi, producing 'cord', and activities done
> with a 'cord': 'tie'.
>
> This word became Pontic *sÁy, and PIE *séy, which as a verbal root appears
> in IE as *séi/y-, seen in Pokorny as 3. *se:(i)- and *sei-, 'bind'.
>
> The IE form *se:- is from a competitive form deriving from pre-PIE/PST
> *sá-?a; Pontic *sÁ?, PIE *séH-, and in IE *se:-; it properly means
> 'bound'.
>
> But stative -*?a was also added to Pre-PIE/PST *sá-yi, producing
> *sa-yí-?a; this would have developed into Pontic *sy(Y)Á? and PIE *syéH,
> eventually IE *sye:-, probably meaning 'sewn' but possible 'bound' (see
> below).
>
> This word may actually have survived into IE if *sye:[u]-ro,
> 'brother-in-law(?)', can be related.
>
> Instead of analyzing this word as *se:[u]-ro-, I think there is the
> possibility that the better analysis is *sje: + wi:/iró-s, '*sje:-man',
> whatever that might mean.
>
> To pre-PIE/ST *sa-yí-?a, -*wa, indicating a set number of verbal
> repetitions to achieve a goal, was added, with shifting of the
> stress-accent one syllable to the right: *sa-yi-?á-wa; this became Pontic
> *sy(Y)A?Áw; this means 'sew (together)'. This then became *siHéw in PIE
> and finally IE *sye:w- then *syu:-
>
> At 1000 BCE, the *late* pre-PIE/PST form could very well have been
> **syi?áw, with, with pre-ST language-specific metathesis **syiwá?.
>
> This would be in obvious approximate agreement with YOUR *syew-H1-.
>
> The glottal spot /?/ may well be the factor that Baxter seeks to capture
> with *k.
>
> To account for Tone 4, which wants a word ending in -*s, I propose that
> 'embroider' is an intensive form of 'sewing'; and it would be natural for
> a **syiwá?, 'sew', to produce **syiwá?-s[yiwá?], 'embroider'.
>
> After truncation: **syiwá?s, 'embroider', very close to *sjiw(k)s.
>
> And would account for Tone 4.
>
> That is the good news.
>
> The bad news is that the ST form appears to be a product of metathesis and
> reduplication that is not found in PIE (to my knowledge).
>
> There is no reason that anything we see in either ST or IE leads to a LW
> explanation: pre-PIE/PST **syi?áw answers nicely for both.
>
> As a result, except indirectly, this development does not speak directly
> the the phonological nature of the phantom *H1.
>
> Note that in my explanation, I required *H to do one thing and one thing
> only in IE: lengthen the adjacent vowel.
>
>
> Patrick
>
> ***
>