--- In Nostratica@..., "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In Nostratica@..., "Gerry" <waluk@...> wrote:
> > --- In Nostratica@..., "Richard Wordingham"
> > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I will be looking at roots. I think we've exhausted the issue

of

> > > affixes, but we shall see. I don't think syntactic parallels

have

> > > been mentioned, except for a very few set phrases, such as 'eye

of

> > the
> > > day' = 'sun'.
> >
> > Good morning Richard. Top of the morning to you. Have I perhaps
> > given two examples of syntactic parallels?
>
> Parallels to what? Paul Manansala made the point that several
> languages use phrases whose literal meanings are 'eye of the day'

to

> mean 'sun'. English 'good day' is parallel to French 'bonjour'; I
> have always assumed that 'top of the morning' has a parallel in

Irish.

> I'm not sure these really count as syntactic parallels. A better
> example of a syntactic parallels is the accusative and infinitive

in

> both Greek and Latin, which may well not have been inherited.
> (Proto-Indo-European may not have had an infinitive as we know it!)
>
> It often serves to express the fact that they don't!

Whoh! You are the one who mentioned "syntactic parallels". I was
simply following form (the *gate-keeper* that I am). Likely I should
have said syntactic similarities. Actually in all the languages I'm
familiar with, there is some type of exclamation for "good morning".
Is there a human language that doesn't express this type of greeting?
The accusative case and infinitive part of speech doesn't occur in
all languages. Swahili for example doesn't have that many case
changes. And the grammatical form for Spanish differs immensely from
that of Latin (or Russian).

> A very common syllable structure is (C)V, but sometimes it is CV,

i.e.

> words and syllables don't begin with vowels, but have to start with

a

> consonant. I find it hard to take this seriously when the glottal
> stop is an allowable consonant, but that I think is my failing.
> Another widespread syllable structure is CV(C), which I think is

the

> Nostratic syllable structure. It's certainly the typical Altaic

and

> Semitic syllable structure. Farsi has a structure CV(CC), while
> Standard Thai has C(C)V(C). Proto-Slavonic seemed to be heading

for

> (CC)CV, but only got as far as (CCC)VC. Incidentally, '(CC)' is to

be

> read as 'no, 1 or 2 consonants', not as '0 or 2 consonants'.

Quick question: can a CV(C) also be represented as (C)V(C)? Any
rule for use of parentheses?

Beyond

> this, it gets more complicated. To say that English has a syllable
> structure (CCC)V(CCCC) (e.g. 'strengths') is of limited use; one

needs

> a better idea of what clusters occur. In discussing Indo-European,

it

> is very useful to include R for resonant - /l/, /r/, /w/, /y/, /m/,
> /n/ - in the code. This is a very useful notation, sometimes used
> with R restricted to a smaller set. For example, it is much more
> informative to say that Proto-Slavonic had a syllable structure
> (CCC)V(R) or that Standard Thai has C(R)V(C). For an example of

this

> notation in action, you could read Witzel's paper 'Autochthonous
> Aryans' ( http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm ),
> where he points how one can identify non-Indo-European words in

Vedic

> Sanskrit.

Wow. Now it gets very confusing. Witzel's paper, BTW, is very
informative.

> The code is also very useful in identifying phonetic environments

when

> describing sound changes.
>
> Finally, 'V' is often used to indicate a vowel whose form is
> determined by vowel harmony, or alternatively, in reconstructions,

no

> longer determinable.

Vowel harmony is an optimistic construct. Much more pleasing than
dissonance. Age enhancing as well.

Gerry