Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [tied] Battle of the cow

Expand Messages
  • markodegard@hotmail.com
    ... Umm. Linguist writers tend to be oblique about oblique cases, to the point you sometimes think they are talking about a specific grammatical case. In my
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 31, 2001
      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal:
      > 2) Webster's defines "oblique (case)" as "a grammatical case other
      > than the nominative and vocative".

      Umm. Linguist writers tend to be oblique about oblique cases, to the
      point you sometimes think they are talking about a specific
      grammatical case. In my experience, they seem to be speaking of the
      accusative, and seemingly, never of the dative, but my own knowledge
      collapses at this point, so I'm only giving an impression.
    • Piotr Gasiorowski
      Yes, it exists, but only in circumstances that favour extreme forms of phonological reduction (including vowel syncope). For example, *pk^u- as a reduced for
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
        Yes, it exists, but only in circumstances that favour
        extreme forms of phonological reduction (including vowel
        syncope). For example, *pk^u- as a reduced for of of *pek^u-
        is found in derivatives and compounds only, while its
        expected occurrences in the noun paradigm were replaced with
        more transparent analogical forms, apparently at an early
        date.

        Piotr

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
        To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:34 PM
        Subject: [tied] Battle of the cow



        > >The laryngeal (when it still existed) caused
        syllabification problems; this
        > >is why the reduced form *gW(h3)u- > *g(W)w- is rarely
        attested except in
        > >some compounds and derivatives like Toch. A ki < *gw-ih2-
        and Gk.
        > >(hekatom-)be: < *-gw-ah2.
        >
        > Yet, you're saying that it STILL exists. Therefore, it
        apparently
        > didn't create too much of a syllabification problem. It's
        > interesting to note that my early prothetic *a- idea
        should be
        > relevant here if what you say is true. We would have had
        > messy *CCC- situations in Late Mid IE like **g(W)xWw-
        which
        > would have necessitated *a-, producing **ag^xWw- and later
        > **og^xWw- (this result is based on the example of *ok^to:u
        > from *kWetWaxe). Instead, we only have *gw-ix- and
        *-gw-ax,
        > which tells me that there is no such *H3 present.
      • Piotr Gasiorowski
        This is not clear to me. Skt. has , which could of course be explained via Brugmann s Law in *gWowes, but why is there no length in the adverbial
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
          This is not clear to me. Skt. has <ga:vaH>, which could of course be explained via Brugmann's Law in *gWowes, but why is there no length in the "adverbial" cases (<gava:, gave, gavi>) or in the dual? *{gWeh3-ew-es} is at least a possibility. On the whole, the assumption of a laryngeal explains some strange aspects of the "cow" word (especially the marked pitch accent of the nom.sg.), though for everyday purposes I am quite content with *gWo:us, etc.
           
          Piotr
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:58 AM
          Subject: Re: [tied] Battle of the cow

          Two tidbits of friendly advice:
          1) There's no lengthening in the nom. pl.
          ...
        • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
          On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:17:02 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski ... The dual has length (Skt. ga:va:(u)
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
            On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:17:02 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
            <gpiotr@...> wrote:

            >This is not clear to me. Skt. has <ga:vaH>, which could of course be explained via Brugmann's Law in *gWowes, but why is there no length in the "adverbial" cases (<gava:, gave, gavi>) or in the dual? *{gWeh3-ew-es} is at least a possibility.

            The dual has length (Skt. ga:va:(u) < *gWow-eh3). As to the lack of
            Brugmann's Law in the weak cases, that's a good point. In an
            acrostatic paradigm (Schindler's group Ia), we would expect:

            N. gWou-s (> gWo:us)
            A. gWou-m (> gWo:m)
            obl. gWeu-

            The oblique form *gWeu- does not seem to occur. In Latin or Slavic,
            this is to be expected (normal development *eu > ou). In Greek or
            Sanskrit, it is a problem. One can assume analogy from the strong
            stem, aided by the phonological tendency to round *eu to *ou,
            especially after a labiovelar. For Sanskrit, an additional
            requirement is that *eu must have become *ou _before_ palatalization,
            but _after_ the working of Brugmann's Law.

            >On the whole, the assumption of a laryngeal explains some strange aspects of the "cow" word (especially the marked pitch accent of the nom.sg.), though for everyday purposes I am quite content with *gWo:us, etc.

            >...
            >From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
            >1) There's no lengthening in the nom. pl.
            >...

            I simply meant that, assuming no laryngeral in the "cow" word, the
            "Szemerényi" lengthening does not occur in the nom. pl.: nom.sg.
            *gWo:u-s, nom.pl. *gWow-es.

            There does seem to be a laryngeal in *gWou-H- "[bull]shit" (Slav.
            govUno).
          • Piotr Gasiorowski
            ... From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [tied] Battle of the cow On Thu, 1 Nov
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:32 PM
              Subject: Re: [tied] Battle of the cow

              On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:17:02 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
              <gpiotr@...> wrote:

              >>This is not clear to me. Skt. has <ga:vaH>, which could of course be explained via Brugmann's Law in *gWowes, but why is there no length in the "adverbial" cases (<gava:, gave, gavi>) or in the dual? *{gWeh3-ew-es} is at least a possibility.

              > The dual has length (Skt. ga:va:(u) < *gWow-eh3).  As to the lack of
              Brugmann's Law in the weak cases, that's a good point.  In an
              acrostatic paradigm (Schindler's group Ia), we would expect: ...
               
              Sorry, I omitted "gen./loc." before "dual" (<gavoH>). The length in the nom./acc./voc. dual <ga:vau> is expected under the laryngeal interpretation.

              > There does seem to be a laryngeal in *gWou-H- "[bull]shit" (Slav. govUno).
               
              Nope. The yer is actually *I, not *U, and belongs to the suffix (< *-ino-m).
               
              Piotr






              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
              On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:47:41 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski ... OK, but it s still possibly *gWowH-ino-. We have Skt. gu:-tha-, Arm. ku (*gWuH-t-), W.Germanic
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:47:41 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
                <gpiotr@...> wrote:

                >> There does seem to be a laryngeal in *gWou-H- "[bull]shit" (Slav. govUno).
                >
                >Nope. The yer is actually *I, not *U, and belongs to the suffix (< *-ino-m).

                OK, but it's still possibly *gWowH-ino-. We have Skt. gu:-tha-, Arm.
                ku (*gWuH-t-), W.Germanic *kwa:t- (> Germ. Kot) < *gWeh1-d-, etc.
              • Piotr Gasiorowski
                Don t forget good ol Gmc. *ku:-, usually explained by assuming *o:u *u:, though nobody has ever proved that such a development is normal in Germanic. I
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                  Don't forget good ol' Gmc. *ku:-, usually explained by assuming *o:u > *u:, though nobody has ever proved that such a development is normal in Germanic. I think something like *gW(o)u-h2- (treated as a consonantal stem, and so rmaining outside the *a:-declension) may underlie it; cf. Greek dru:s 'oak < tree' (*dr(o)u-h2-). But in these cases the hypothetical *-h2 is external to the root.
                   
                  Piotr
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:07 PM
                  Subject: Re: [tied] Battle of the cow

                  OK, but it's still possibly *gWowH-ino-.  We have Skt. gu:-tha-, Arm.
                  ku (*gWuH-t-), W.Germanic *kwa:t- (> Germ. Kot) < *gWeh1-d-, etc.
                • João S. Lopes Filho
                  And Greek presbys
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                    And Greek presbys < *pres-gWu-
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:28 PM
                    Subject: Re: [tied] Battle of the cow

                    Don't forget good ol' Gmc. *ku:-, usually explained by assuming *o:u > *u:, though nobody has ever proved that such a development is normal in Germanic. I think something like *gW(o)u-h2- (treated as a consonantal stem, and so rmaining outside the *a:-declension) may underlie it; cf. Greek dru:s 'oak < tree' (*dr(o)u-h2-). But in these cases the hypothetical *-h2 is external to the root.
                     
                    Piotr
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:07 PM
                    Subject: Re: [tied] Battle of the cow

                    OK, but it's still possibly *gWowH-ino-.  We have Skt. gu:-tha-, Arm.
                    ku (*gWuH-t-), W.Germanic *kwa:t- (> Germ. Kot) < *gWeh1-d-, etc.

                  • Sergejus Tarasovas
                    ... Why not *govIno with an adjectival *-In-? Is *H (whatevet it be) Slavic *U a plausible derivation? Sergei
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                      --- In cybalist@y..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@w...> wrote:
                      > There does seem to be a laryngeal in *gWou-H- "[bull]shit" (Slav.
                      > govUno).

                      Why not *govIno with an adjectival *-In-? Is *H (whatevet it be) >
                      Slavic *U a plausible derivation?

                      Sergei
                    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                      On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:45:37 -0000, Sergejus Tarasovas ... Probably not (though I suppose it s not unthinkable that *w& *wu). In any case, Pokorny s *U
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                        On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:45:37 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
                        <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

                        >--- In cybalist@y..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@w...> wrote:
                        >> There does seem to be a laryngeal in *gWou-H- "[bull]shit" (Slav.
                        >> govUno).
                        >
                        >Why not *govIno with an adjectival *-In-? Is *H (whatevet it be) >
                        >Slavic *U a plausible derivation?

                        Probably not (though I suppose it's not unthinkable that *w& > *wu).
                        In any case, Pokorny's *U should be *I (he writes *govUno with a star,
                        I suppose there's no bullshit in the OCS Gospels). I should have
                        given a clearer example of why this root is considered to have a
                        laryngeal (see my reply to Piotr).
                      • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                        On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:28:34 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski ... Couldn t these be collective ( broken plural ) formations, with or without *h2, of the type (pardon
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                          On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 17:28:34 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
                          <gpiotr@...> wrote:

                          >Don't forget good ol' Gmc. *ku:-, usually explained by assuming *o:u > *u:, though nobody has ever proved that such a development is normal in Germanic. I think something like *gW(o)u-h2- (treated as a consonantal stem, and so rmaining outside the *a:-declension) may underlie it; cf. Greek dru:s 'oak < tree' (*dr(o)u-h2-). But in these cases the hypothetical *-h2 is external to the root.

                          Couldn't these be collective ("broken plural") formations, with or
                          without *h2, of the type (pardon my pre-PIE):

                          *wá:dan (> wódr) -> coll. *w(a)dá:n(h2) > *udo:r "water(s)"

                          So:

                          *dá:ru (> *dóru) -> coll. *d(a)rú:(h2) > *dru:- "tree(s)"
                          *gú:wu (> *gWówu) -> coll. *gW(u)wú:(h2) > *gWu:- "cow(s)"
                        • Piotr Gasiorowski
                          Perhaps. But they must have been recycled as feminines anyway (as opposed to *udo:r), acquiring a final *-s in the process. Piotr ... From: Miguel Carrasquer
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                            Perhaps. But they must have been recycled as feminines anyway (as opposed to *udo:r), acquiring a final *-s in the process.
                             
                            Piotr
                             
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:08 PM
                            Subject: Re: [tied] Battle of the cow

                            Couldn't these be collective ("broken plural") formations, with or
                            without *h2, of the type (pardon my pre-PIE):

                            *wá:dan (> wódr) -> coll. *w(a)dá:n(h2) > *udo:r  "water(s)"

                            So:

                            *dá:ru (> *dóru) -> coll. *d(a)rú:(h2) > *dru:-  "tree(s)"
                            *gú:wu (> *gWówu) -> coll. *gW(u)wú:(h2) > *gWu:-  "cow(s)"
                          • Glen Gordon
                            ... 1) The plural suffix may not have been at one time necessary in conveying the plural as it later was in Late IE, hence the singular form may conceivably
                            Message 13 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                              I suggested:
                              >> Mid IE Late IE
                              >> obl.sg *gWa:u nom.sg *gWo:u-s
                              >> loc.sg *gWow-i
                              >> gen.sg *gWau-s� gen.sg *gWous
                              >> obl.pl *gWa:u(-�s) nom.pl *gWo:w-es

                              Miguel offers "two tidbits of friendly advice":
                              >1) There's no lengthening in the nom. pl.
                              >2) Webster's defines "oblique (case)" as "a grammatical case other
                              >than the nominative and vocative". Why did the Mid Indo-Europeans
                              >think differently?

                              1) The plural suffix may not have been at one time necessary
                              in conveying the plural as it later was in Late IE, hence
                              the "singular" form may conceivably have been used in the
                              plural. Secondly, Piotr wrote it with *o:, so perhaps you
                              should talk to him.

                              2) Alright, but this case is not only the precursor to the
                              IE nominative, but also the vocative and the later locative.
                              To convey the locative, this "oblique" case was used with
                              postpositions like *d�i or *b�i. Should I continue to
                              use "nominative" and risk confusion with the Late IE sense
                              of the term?

                              - love gLeN



                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                            • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                              On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 00:36:11, Glen Gordon ... Well, that was in the context: nom.pl. *gWo:wes
                              Message 14 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                                On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 00:36:11, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                                wrote:

                                >1) The plural suffix may not have been at one time necessary
                                > in conveying the plural as it later was in Late IE, hence
                                > the "singular" form may conceivably have been used in the
                                > plural. Secondly, Piotr wrote it with *o:, so perhaps you
                                > should talk to him.

                                Well, that was in the context:
                                "nom.pl. *gWo:wes < *gWoh3-ow-es, more or less as reflected in Old
                                Indic."

                                That's to say, with a laryngeal to effect the lengthening (which is
                                attested AFAIK only in Old Indic, and can just as easily be from
                                laryngeal-less *gWowes with Brugmann's Law > ga:vah.).

                                Without laryngeal, the nom.pl. just doesn't lengthen like the nom. sg.

                                >2) Alright, but this case is not only the precursor to the
                                > IE nominative, but also the vocative and the later locative.
                                > To convey the locative, this "oblique" case was used with
                                > postpositions like *dëi or *bëi. Should I continue to
                                > use "nominative" and risk confusion with the Late IE sense
                                > of the term?

                                Unfortunately, there's not a good term in common use. You could use
                                "strong form", or "non-oblique". For the neuters, maybe "absolutive"
                                is a good idea (but for animates, it's confusing because it implies
                                the existence of an ergative). I suspect the Latin term was "casus
                                rectus", but I cannot confirm that. "Rect."?
                              • Glen Gordon
                                ... No, no, Miggy. You seem to be resisting Mid IE vocalic constraints and the penultimate accent rule. That should be, starting in Late Mid IE, the following:
                                Message 15 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                                  Miguel forgets about linguistic rules:
                                  >*w�:dan (> w�dr) -> coll. *w(a)d�:n(h2) > *udo:r "water(s)"
                                  >*d�:ru (> *d�ru) -> coll. *d(a)r�:(h2) > *dru:- "tree(s)"
                                  >*g�:wu (> *gW�wu) -> coll. *gW(u)w�:(h2) > *gWu:- "cow(s)"

                                  No, no, Miggy. You seem to be resisting Mid IE vocalic constraints
                                  and the penultimate accent rule. That should be, starting in Late
                                  Mid IE, the following:

                                  *wat:er (> w�dr) -> coll. *wet:�r-xe
                                  *t:�reu (> *d�ru) -> coll. *t:er�u-xe
                                  *k:Wa:u (> *gWo:us) -> coll. *k:W�u-xe

                                  PS: I think I mistakingly wrote **gWa:u earlier but
                                  MidIE *g = LateIE *gh.

                                  - love gLeN



                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                                  On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 01:23:38, Glen Gordon ... Well, seriously now, how does your penultimate accent rule explain the difference
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Nov 1, 2001
                                    On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 01:23:38, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
                                    wrote:

                                    >Miguel forgets about linguistic rules:
                                    >>*wá:dan (> wódr) -> coll. *w(a)dá:n(h2) > *udo:r "water(s)"
                                    >>*dá:ru (> *dóru) -> coll. *d(a)rú:(h2) > *dru:- "tree(s)"
                                    >>*gú:wu (> *gWówu) -> coll. *gW(u)wú:(h2) > *gWu:- "cow(s)"
                                    >
                                    >No, no, Miggy. You seem to be resisting Mid IE vocalic constraints
                                    >and the penultimate accent rule. That should be, starting in Late
                                    >Mid IE, the following:
                                    >
                                    >*wat:er (> wódr) -> coll. *wet:ár-xe
                                    >*t:áreu (> *dóru) -> coll. *t:eráu-xe
                                    >*k:Wa:u (> *gWo:us) -> coll. *k:Wáu-xe

                                    Well, seriously now, how does your "penultimate accent rule" explain
                                    the difference between the paradigms of *ph2té:r(s), *ph2trós and
                                    *máh2te:r, *máh2tr(V)s?
                                  • P&G
                                    ... rectus , but I cannot confirm that. Rect. ? The Latin terms are casus rectus and casus obliquus (plurals: casus recti and casus obliqui, casus since
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Nov 3, 2001
                                      >I suspect the Latin term was "casus
                                      rectus", but I cannot confirm that. "Rect."?

                                      The Latin terms are casus rectus and casus obliquus (plurals: casus recti
                                      and casus obliqui, "casus" since it is 4th not 2nd). The "casus recti" are
                                      only the Latin Nominative and Vocative. The same terminology is used for
                                      Classical Greek.

                                      Peter
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.